Re: Termination clauses, was: Choice of venue

[Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 09:15:44AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > More clearly (according to my understanding), the resulting binary
> > is--it pulls in pieces of readline--but the source is not.  (I'm not sure
> > if this impacts your point, but it's an important distinction.)
> 
> That's debatable.  If your program is written against a library, and
> there is only one implementation of that library, I would argue that the
> source is a derivative of the library as well.  Things get more complex
> if there are multiple implementations, of course.

LGPL clause 5 seems to express the FSF's view on this, which seems
correct and reasonable to me:

"  5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library".  Such a
work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

  However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
library".  The executable is therefore covered by this License.
Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables."

-- 
Glenn Maynard