[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL and LGPL issues for LCC, or lack thereof



I have no idea what the original dispute is about, and I'm not sure
why I was involved here, unless because (as seems evident from Bruce's
tone of voice) he has been trying without success to make commonly-
understood matters accessible to a persistent dissenting interlocutor.
>From what I can gather, the underlying question concerns the legal
situation when LGPL'd code is distributed linked to proprietary code,
which LGPL permits, and the package of mixed binary plus LGPL'd source
as distributed does not contain all that would be required to replace
the LGPL'd portion with a fixed, improved, or updated portion.

If this is the situation, I believe it is adequately treated for
developers' purposes in the FSF's FAQ at www.gnu.org.  The FSF also
uses its rather scarce resources to answer all licensing questions
gratis at licensing@gnu.org.  So far as I can see, Mr Edwards, you
haven't taken that route, because there's no record of a tracking
ticket for a question from you in our internal workflow system.  If
after consulting either the FAQ or licensing@gnu.org you still have a
question, please write directly to me, leaving out Mr Perens and the
other people on this distlist, who are very busy people with other
things to do.  (So am I, but I want to help where help is needed).  If
you are a practicing lawyer, please let me know in what jurisdiction.
I would be grateful for a detailed explanation of what was
insufficient or unhelpful about the information given in the
Foundation's FAQ.

Thanks to everyone for exercising patience.

Eben

-- 
 Eben Moglen                       voice: 212-854-8382 
 Professor of Law                    fax: 212-854-7946       moglen@
 Columbia Law School, 435 West 116th Street, NYC 10027     columbia.edu
 General Counsel, Free Software Foundation   http://moglen.law.columbia.edu



Reply to: