From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18040 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2004 20:08:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact pthreads-win32-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18014 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2004 20:07:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crossys.com) (80.98.38.32) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Dec 2004 20:07:56 -0000 Received: from Kereszt by crossys.com with local (Exim 4.32) id I8BH8P-000274-R1; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:07:38 +0100 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:08:00 -0000 From: Keresztfalvi Laszlo To: Gili Cc: pthreads-win32 Subject: Re: Static linking under win32 Message-ID: <20041206200737.GC3980@cross> References: <41B49828.8010407@hawksoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:46:24PM -0500, Gili wrote: > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:34:32 -0800, Phil Frisbie, Jr. wrote: > [...] > >This is what the LGPL is all about. > > > >> Regards, > >> Laszlo > > Laszlo, > > I think the point of conflict is more about what people > *percieve* LGPL to be about. FSF keeps on stating things like "you give Sorry, I was quoted.. twice.. so it's not my mail :)) I've take a short tour on www.fsf.org and found this link clean and short to overview :) About the GPL compatible licenses: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses The first two on the list is what we are talking about. It clearly states for LGPL: "it permits linking with non-free modules". Follow the special circumstances link where: "The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs." I think this clearly explains what you are scared about. Note that LGPL changed its full name to Lesser GPL to better reflect that it is not only for libraries but here it was called Library GPL. Back to Gili: > users the right to reverse-engineer your final-product" or "you must > ship the full source-code of the LGPL component with your > final-product" if you use LGPL code. I've seen explicit mentions I think you mix the GPL and LGPL at some point. Providing the source of the used (linked in) LGPL library just means you make available the LGPL'd lib which you've used and usually available from its author too.. Not your code! About the reverse engineering I agree with Ross that this is more about future linking without access to the source. (Usually a quite ugly hack play with symbols.. chosen only when nothing else possible :) Regards, Laszlo