[Top][All Lists]

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

Partial distribution of GPL source

From: lichen678
Subject: Partial distribution of GPL source
Date: 6 Sep 2006 23:30:49 -0700
User-agent: G2/0.2

Please redirect me if I'm posting in the wrong place:

I am writing GPL code.

I want to use pieces of code from LGPL libraries.

I would prefer not to distribute the entire library when I only need a
few modules. So I have been stripping out the modules needed, writing a
new Makefile to compile them independently, and bundling the
stripped-down library with my code, placed into a separate

The source code has not been modified, and I've left the entire set of
licensing and documentation files in the subdirectory, as well as a
brief file describing what I've done.

Is this legal? I wasn't anticipating problems since my code is under
the GPL, but in reading the LGPL I was concerned about the following

*** Begin quote:

d)  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.)

End quote ***

I don't entirely follow the legalese, but it seems to indicate that
there may be problems with stripping functionality out of an LGPL

I'm hoping the phrase "remains meaningful" will help me: that if I
remove bits of a library which I don't need, their purpose is no longer
meaningful, so I don't need to worry. I hope.

Any help, or redirection to a better place to post this, would be

--jude hungerford.

reply via email to

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