Talk:GNU Lesser General Public License
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Comment out
I commented this out: "Another major difference is that derivative works (which are not GPLed) must be software libraries." Where in the text of the license does it say that? Versions of OpenOffice.org created under the LGPL (I really doubt Ximian is using the SISSL!) aren't software libraries - David Gerard 20:08, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
- Section 2. But this section only applies to derivative works that are "based on" the library, i.e. modifications, iterations, or evolutions of it. Derivative works such as programs that merely "use" the library are covered separately under Sections 5 and 6. - 68.33.75.150
[edit] otherside
There was one link for "What microsoft says about Software licenses". It's now removed. Is it not essential to know opinion of a propreitary company on FREE licenses?
"The LGPL is now deprecated" - With what was it replaced?
- It isn't deprecated, but should not be used for everything. The FSF commented on this because big projects like Wine and OpenOffice use this license when instead they should use the GPL. Dustin 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
About the "derivative work must be a software library":
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) The modified work must itself be a software library.
I have often wondered about Ximian OOo, which mentions the LGPL on the About box. It seems this might be an unenforced violation.
Regarding LGPL deprecation:
It was "replaced" by the GPL, even though the GPL predates the LGPL. Basically, Richard Stallman decided the LGPL wasn't such a good idea for a lot of what it was used for.
Jerickson314 20 April 2005
- See the comments on "derivative works" above. Also, LGPL does not replace the GPL, it is an alternative to it. Which one to use is a matter of strategy. The GPL is preferred in many but not all cases. - 68.33.75.150
- Jerickson314, read the article by Stallmann. His intention is for free software (Sourcecode) to proliferate. He can achieve this if as many people and developers use as much free software as possible. The talk about strategy boils down to this: If there exist many alternatives to a software "module" that a developer would use to create a closed application without requirements to open that application up, use LGPL for the free alternatives. That way, at least a part of the closed application (namely this module) remains source-open, because the developer has the incentive of using the free (as in beer) GNU library over the (probably not free) proprietary one.
- However, for software modules / libraries / whatever where the free software is the superior choice, or maybe the only choice, the normal GPL should be used because use of the GPL would require the entire application to be open. The GPL considers even dynamic linking to be "deriverative", although this hasn't been tested in court.
- I am not a lawyer, but that is the short version of how I understood Stallman. I hope it helps anybody. :) -- Nils Jeppe 06:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Correction needed.
This feature is useful if one wants to create a version of the code that software companies cannot use in proprietary software products.
I believe this section is just plain wrong. The GPL can be used in "proprietary software" but the company must make the source code accessible to the public. Therefore, this section needs to be rewritten. --Mecanismo 13:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't the whole truth either. Providing the source code is only one of the options available; the basic requirement is that the program needs to be debuggable somehow. - 68.33.75.150
"Page 4" of http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:gk9T1KYXjxIJ:fly.isti.cnr.it/sl/licenses.pdf+kernel+released+under+the+LGPL&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3 the (Wikipedia) article is definitely wrong, though linked article states that
"the LGPL may be linked against non GPL-compatible software, even proprietary software, provided that the source of the LGPL part is made available, and that the LGPL part is upgradeable independently from the rest of the program linked against it."
which disagrees with user "68.33.75.150"s post above.
An official page at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html says "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."
[edit] GPL compatibility
I removed this:
[About section 3, the GPL relicensing clause.] It is also necessary to ensure that the LGPL is "GPL-compatible", so that GPL-covered programs can use LGPL-covered libraries.
This is not true; the LGPL would allow a linked binary to be distributed under the GPL, so it is GPL-compatible. The clause is there to allow the reuse of code from LGPL libraries, in libraries or applications that are under the GPL. That is, straight reuse of code in the application, not linking.
Tim 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Free to use for homepages?
Sorry, but no matter how hard I try and read the article (or the actual documents), I don't quite get whether or not it's allowed to use an image licensed with the GNU lesser general public license for, for example, a homepage? Mackan 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Anybody? Please. Mackan 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
