[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Something about Less General Public License

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Something about Less General Public License
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:06:10 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

"Claude Yih" <> writes:

> Hi, everyone. I don't know if it is right to discuss things about
> LGPL in this group. However, it seems that there is no particularly
> LGPL-oriented group, so I have to post this message here.

This group is about GNU, not the GPL, so the LGPL is equally on-topic.

> Our group is developing a library which contains some source code
> belongs to a library that is distributed under the terms of Less
> General Public License 2.1. Of course, we know that we should
> distribute our library under LGPL too. However, in our library, it
> is dynamically linked with a shared library not covered by LGPL
> (this part is not the one belongts to the library covered by
> LGPL). But for some reason, it is impossible for us to distribute
> that shared library under LGPL as well. Our question is that if we
> distributed our library (binary and source code) under the terms of
> Less General Public License without providing the shared library
> together, would our activity be a violation of Less General Public
> License?

    2d) If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a
    table of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the
    facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is
    invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
    event an application does not supply such function or table, the
    facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose
    remains meaningful.

    (For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has a
    purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the
    application. Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any
    application-supplied function or table used by this function must be
    optional: if the application does not supply it, the square root
    function must still compute square roots.)

    These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
    identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library,
    and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
    themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
    sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
    distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
    on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
    this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
    entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote

> Please help us with the question above. Your kindness will be
> appreciated. Thanks:)

I recommend that you contact the author of the LGPLed library and/or
the FSF copyright clerk to get further clarification.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]