On Wednesday 02 April 2003 21:59, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > "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."
> > Everyone does realize that on Linux PostgreSQL binaries link against
> > glibc, which is LGPL......
> I assume the standard dynamic linker counts as "a suitable shared library
> mechanism for linking with the Library" as per LGPL 6b. ;)
Then I guess we had better not make any static linked builds, no?
The whole thread just got ridiculous, that's all. So I attempted to
illuminate the 'ridiculosity' of the whole matter. Speaking of 'ridiculous'
reminds me:
Readline is full-bore GPL. There's no 6b exception there. We dynamically
link readline, on most Linux distributions. Of course, Tom has a point;
there are alternatives available. None are as good as readline, though.
Which is one of the reasons it's GPL'd in the first place, according the the
GPL FAQ.
In fact, the GPL FAQ contains this little tidbit:
'If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that
any program which uses it has to be under the GPL? Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the
library.'
:-O
Hmmm..... 'as it is actually run' means with the library embedded in the
resulting dynamically linked program -- just because it's dynamically linked
doesn't mean that code isn't part of the program. Should we say 'bye bye' to
readline?
Of course, there's the issue of the BSD license being 'compatible' with the
GPL. Then it gets hairy. And picky. Fun fun fun.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
