'GPL encumbrance problems' (jdow)

[Mike McCarty]

Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 15:20 +0100, Erwin Rol wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 07:49 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
>>>And you'll know they are zealots when they make the claim (which
>>>they officially do...) that you are violating their copyright if
>>>you distribute an executable that might link to a GPL'd library
>>>even if you don't include *any* GPL'd code in your distribution.
>>
>>Does your application work without the GPL library? No? So your
>>application _needs_ someone else his copyrighted work to function. So
>>you _need_ the work someone else did to make money? And you _demand_
>>that it comes for free and gratis! If you don't like the GPL license of
>>the library, rewrite it, nothing stops you from doing that. 
> 
> 
> What I understand Les said is if someone writes an application that runs
> on Linux as well as on other OS's compatible with Linux that, if a user
> of that application runs it with a GPL'd library, he/she must GPL that

There are two operative clauses in the LGPL which cause this. The
first is clause 5, which states that anything linked with an LGPL
library becomes a derivative work, and that the resulting executable
is governed by clause 6. Clause 6 states that the resulting work
must be open to reverse engineering and repair. It specifically states
in so many words that if the executable is also linked with other
libraries which do not conform to this restriction, then the
distribution is a violation. I quote

[QUOTE MODE ON]

5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, 
but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked 
with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". [Which has no
restrictions.]

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates 
an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains 
portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". 
The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states 
terms for distribution of such executables.

[...]

[6.]
It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions 
of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the 
operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them 
and the Library together in an executable that you distribute.

[QUOTE MODE OFF]

You may read the original at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
and verify that I have not clobbered the context.

> application? What sheer zealotry! Those who work earn their living.
> Those who don't live off those who do. Which one are you?

Precisely. Such people have at times been referred to as "parasites on
society", though not by me.

[snip]

>>It all comes down to; i want your work gratis, so i can make money with
>>it. And if you dislike that i call you a yealot and bitch and complain
>>that it is unfair. 
> 
> 
> In no way did Les say he wanted to make money off GPL'd work!

In another message, I pointed out that this guy objects to peoples'
messages in ways that indicate that he either doesn't read them,
or can't understand them, or is trolling. I can't tell which.

[snip]

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!