Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Peter Keller]

In comp.lang.lisp Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> On 3/25/2010 10:05 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Licenses covering a work "as a whole" are hard to press
> > when the material they cover is functionally a drop-in
> > replacement of existing non-free libraries. That makes
> > "mere aggregation" a really good defense.
> 
> This is completely wrong. The GPL applies to work as a whole
> only when the GPL-covered work is made part of a combined
> work and that combined work is copied and distributed.
> 
> Your statement sounds as if you continue to believe incorrectly
> that a program which uses a dynamically linked library covered
> by the GPL is subject to the GPL even when it is copied and
> distributed without that library. That is not so. Copyright law
> is about copying, and when a GPL-covered work is not being copied
> and distributed, the GPL cannot come into play. What the program
> does when it runs is not relevant for falling under the GPL because
> the GPL does not restrict running covered works.
> 
> Similarly, mere aggregation is irrelevant to libraries which
> are statically linked into programs. Such a combined work is
> not a mere aggregation of the library and the other components.
> Mere aggregation refers to including a covered work on a medium
> of distribution along with other works.

Not that I really care, and I probably won't post in this thread again,
but the GPL V2 has to say:

"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."

So, that covers one not having to ship the glibc sources with your
project just because you linked with it. However, if you have a modified
version of the glibc in your package, then you'd have to make the modified
sources available.

Then it goes on to say:

"This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License."

It is that "permit linking proprietary applications" phrase which is the rub.
It doesn't mention static or dynamic, so one must assume both. Hence, the
LGPL.

If you're still curious, then read the faq:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html

It has a few different scenarios about what it means to link with a GPL library.

Later,
-pete