

Hi...

	Well, since this has all sort of died off, and since I'd like to
get some resolution on it.

	Does anyone here *understand* the LGPL?  If we put the ODBC
drivers *under* src/interfaces, does that risk contaminating the rest of
the code *in any way*?  Anyone here done a reasonably thorough study of
the LGPL and can comment on it?




Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:12:59 -0500 (EST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
ODBC & LGPL license...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 12-Jan-98 The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>       Does anyone here *understand* the LGPL?  If we put the ODBC
>drivers *under* src/interfaces, does that risk contaminating the rest of
>the code *in any way*?  Anyone here done a reasonably thorough study of
>the LGPL and can comment on it?

My understanding from Stallman's statements on the matter are:  Distribution of
GPL'd source with non-GPL'd source is fine, as long as it is simple to figure
out which is which.  By definition, GPL'd sources can be distributed freely.
For binaries which fall under the GPL, again, mixing them with other stuff is
OK, as long as GPL'd stuff is identified as such.  Sources must be available,
of course.

LGPL is completely different.  LGPL is what you use when you link your
non-GPL'd sources against a library built with GPL'd sources.  In that case,
you are legal IFF you stuff can be re-linked against a different, non-GPL'd
library without recompilation.  Actually, there's a bit of confusion on my
part about how much recompilation is permitted.

Companies like DG/Sequent/Sun/etc wouldn't be able to include FSF software on
the distributions if the above were not the case.

ObCaveat:  I'm not a lawyer.  I don't look like a lawyer, I don't smell like a
lawyer, and I don't lie like a lawyer.


=====================================================================
| "If you're all through trying to burn the field down, will you    |
| kindly get up and tell me why you're sitting in a fruit field,    |
| stark naked, frying peaches?"                                     |
=====================================================================
| Finger geek@andrew.cmu.edu for my public key.                     |
=====================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBNLp4SYdzVnzma+gdAQHRmAIArMU8KwW6eoplN/hiQ79Sev4TdeAEVcBp
ejh/Px3zYZH6xJh75uXRLnelyXZeij5+UUNs4wwE3GIUQ9d02rBbQw==
=uGid
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mon, 12 Jan 1998 14:57:57 -0500 (EST)
"Brian E. Gallew" <geek+@cmu.edu>
RE: [HACKERS] ODBC & LGPL license...
>>>>> "scrappy" == The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:

    > Hi...

    > 	Well, since this has all sort of died off, and since I'd like
    > to get some resolution on it.

    > 	Does anyone here *understand* the LGPL?  If we put the ODBC
    > drivers *under* src/interfaces, does that risk contaminating the
    > rest of the code *in any way*?  Anyone here done a reasonably
    > thorough study of the LGPL and can comment on it?

Why not put the LGPL libraries in a separate area from the rest of the
code (src/lgpl?).  This would make the libraries covered by the
aggregation clause (part of section 2 says -- In addition, mere
aggregation of another work not based on the Library with the Library
(or with a work based on the Library) on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of
this License.).  I think this clearly states that it would not risk
contaminating any of the other code.

I would consider sending mail to GNU (gnu@gnu.org) to get any
additional clarification needed.



Kent S. Gordon
Architect
iNetSpace Co.
voice: (972)851-3494 fax:(972)702-0384 e-mail:kgor@inetspace.com





Tue, 13 Jan 1998 18:02:31 -0600 (CST)
"Kent S. Gordon" <kgor@inetspace.com>
Re: [HACKERS] ODBC & LGPL license...