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

Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib

On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 11:14 -0300, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
> I find this discussion ultimately absurd. Debian is *not*
> distributing a derivative work. Debian does *not* distribute a work
> that includes both plugins/libraries. The fact that the things are
> (dynamically) linked at run time, especially combined with the fact
> that the plugins are opened with dlopen() and use stable API, is
> *more* than enough to lift any (inexistent IMHO) "no-link"
> requirement of the GPL.

I find most of this response confusing.

First of all, it's clear that Debian *is* distributing a derived work
based on GPLed libraries, called "Debian GNU/Linux".  The specific case
in question may fall under the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL, but
then this is the point you should argue.  I abhor imprecision in these
discussions, as they are the breeding ground for all kinds of myths and
speculation.  (Not that I am immune to imprecision, or that I am not
occasionally a myth-monger in my own right.  But I welcome the

Second, you seem to be asserting that an app and its dynamically linked
libraries do not constitute a derived work based on both for the
purposes of the GPL.  Rather than debate this point, I think it best to
point out that this runs counter to accepted precedent within Debian
that dates back a long time; see the KDE/Qt controversy for a famous
example.  Basing conclusions on this past precedent is not "absurd";
indeed, it would seem that the onus is on you to prove your assertion.

That's probably enough for starters.  If I am indeed confused and you
are correct, then there doesn't seem much point to proceed to the
dlopen() question.

Reply to: