Re: Using GPL software

[Alexander Terekhov]

xiaomitao@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> so that is why we have an LGPL license that enables linking of programs
> to the libraries without forcing the programs to be GPL-ed?

"Lesser" (in fact much greater) GPL moronity stems from RMS' 
misunderstanding of the term "derivative work" under copyright law
with respect to ability to infect separate works under independent 
copyright merely "linked" with the GPL'd works. 

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/01/1052216&mode=nocomment

------
RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That
is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright
law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work,
then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our
licenses say, they are operative only for works that are
derivative of our code.

A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if
it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser
GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some
of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the
courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative,
if the courts think it is not.
------

And as for linking and LGPL, see

http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf

------
These sections of the LGPL are an impenetrable maze of technological 
babble. They should not be in a general-purpose software license.

[...]

The LGPL concedes that the GPL is a better, more appropriate license, 
and it allows any licensees to convert to the GPL at their option:

   You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General
   Public License

[...]

The LGPL, therefore, is an anomaly
------

regards,
alexander.