OT: Two ways Microsoft sabotages Linux desktop adoption
Ralf Corsepius
rc040203 at freenet.de
Thu Feb 16 06:48:06 UTC 2006
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 00:41 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 00:31, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > > > In any case, no corporation is going to use anything which is GPL or
> > > > LGPL and risk being taken to court.
> > >
> > > They do use it, they just can't distribute it - not even if they
> > > want to give it away. Which means that the rest of us won't
> > > ever have it.
> > Wrong. You can dynamically link against LGPL'ed libraries and many
> > closed source packages, comprising $$$ ones, do.
>
> Yes, but RMS would prefer that the LGPL did not exist.
Yes, this is his opinion. It's a political statement of his, you can
agree with or not.
> > Tiny, but popular example: RealPlayer (RealPlayer10GOLD.rpm)
> >
> > ldd usr/local/RealPlayer/realplay.bin
> > linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00869000)
> > libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x00e97000)
>
> You'll note there's nothing like, say, libreadline in
> there.
Exactly, because it's GPL'ed. LGPL and GPL are different things.
Though they are similar, they are substantially different.
Ralf
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list