Re: why LGPL 2.0?

[Lars Hallberg <spam micropp se>]

Paul Davis wrote:

> > > Part of this is caused by the fact that GTK++ comes with LGPL version 
> > > 2, from June 1991.  This has some very confusing wording in section 
> > > 5, where the first paragraph says that a program that links with the 
> > > library is not a derivative work, and the second paragraph says that 
> > > a program that links with the library IS a derivative work.
> > >      
> > This is a slightly long reply, but it covers what you're talking about...
> >    
>
> unfortunately, it contains incorrect information.
>
>  
>
> >     So...? Basically, under section (5) you're screwed. If you link
> >     with the GTK stuff, you form a derivative of the library and must
> >     release the source code, EVEN THOUGH the source code itself is
> >     not, when independent of the library, covered by the license.
> >    
>
> AFAIK, this is absolutely and completely untrue.
>
> the entire point of the LGPL is that you do *not* have to distribute
> your source. what you have to do is to distribute your program in a
> way that makes it possible for the user to relink against a modified
> version of the library in question.
>
> typically, you'd give the user a big .o file, maybe (or maybe not)
> some instructions on how to link it, and thats that.
>
> you do not ever ever ever have to release source code to your
> program. if you did, there would be no point to the LGPL.

I agre, but You will have to distribute the source of the library?

> as you noted, none of this matters if you use dynamic/shared/run-time
> linking against the library, because the user is automatically
> "relinking" against whatever version of the library they have every
> time they run the program.

And in this case (if You rely on the user alreddy having the library and 
do not inklude the library in Your distribution of the software) You 
don't even have to distribute the sorce of the library.

/LaH