Re: Can LGPL be used for non-libraries

[Daniel Qarras]

> > > > Sorry for being pedantic here but I am considering to use LGPL for a 
> > > > software package that is not a software library in any sense and 
> > > > therefore I would need to know exactly how to do it when LGPL is 
> > > > actually requiring modifications to be software libraries.
> > >
> > > What rights are hoping to allow people to take advantage of that
> > > are not available under the GPL?  
> >
> > The right to modify a non-library that is licensed under the
> > Library GPL. How can I satisty LGPL 2a) that says:
> > "The modified work must itself be a software library."
> > when the original clealry is not a software library?
>
> Are you speaking for Daniel or as one of Daniel's users?

Neither, but that's irrelevant here.

> From the user perspective even a non library work can be compiled as a library 
> with no changes to the source.  Some modification or additions might be needed
> to make that library reasonable useful.  Thus there is no inconsistency with 
> releasing a non library work under the LGPL.  Perhaps for you 2a) is not 
> useful because you do not want to release a modified library.
>
> If you don't like those choices the LGPL allows you to instead distribute 
> the modified code under the GPL if the final work is not a library.

I guess you miss the point here. I was originally asking whether LGPL 
can be used for non-libraries or not, including also modified versions, 
not about any other possible choices. I again refer to the examples I 
mentioned, OpenOffice.org and GNU GPP: I notice that, e.g., Linux 
distributions (including Debian, Red Hat, and SuSE) are shipping 
slightly modified/patched versions of OOo as part of their distributions 
but they claim the license is LGPL. But since, e.g., OOo or OOo's Writer 
is not a software library, why is this allowed?

Thanks.