List:MySQL++« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Allan Hardy Date:November 9 2005 6:29pm
Subject:RE: License Question
View as plain text  
 
Warren

I truly appreciate the response. 

I am not trying to use you as a replacement for reading the GPL/LGPL
FAQs, etc etc.  I've done all that many times.  I even attended a
seminar given by FSF lawyers and technical staff. The LGPL license is
frankly a bit of a mess, in their words, and it will go through more
modifications then GPL in the upcoming GPL 3 next wave effort.

My only point is I don't agree that things are 'spelled out' as in
clear, black and white etc.

So your comments are appreciated.

>>>No.  With GPL you have to provide human-readable source code to your
users.  If you statically link an LGPL library to your program, you only
have to provide sufficient files to be able to relink the executable;
unless your program is truly weird, that means object files.

What I meant by no significant advantages is that as you said, providing
the object code and pieces needed to do this is onerous, and while it is
technically/legally a choice its very impractical, right?  I mean I
believe that's what I hear you and chris saying?

>>Why is static linking tied to proprietary applications in your mind? 
>>What's wrong with dynamic linking?

I am not sure what I said that went down this path. Heres what I meant:

Proprietary App -> Static Link to LGPL -> has to release object
code/allow for relinking - difficult
Proprietary App -> Dynamic Link to LGPL -> has no obligations since
relinking is not an issue - easy

Allan


-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Young [mailto:mysqlpp@stripped] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:13 PM
To: MySQL++ Mailing List
Subject: Re: License Question

Hardy, Allan wrote:
> 
> Putting all the technical details aside, why did you choose LGPL over 
> GPL?

I am not the original author, and neither is MySQL AB.  The original
author chose it, but he is no longer involved with MySQL++.  The
original author will not relicense his code, so we are stuck with this
license.

> It seems that Static linking to LGPL libraries offers no advantages 
> over GPL?

No.  With GPL you have to provide human-readable source code to your
users.  If you statically link an LGPL library to your program, you only
have to provide sufficient files to be able to relink the executable;
unless your program is truly weird, that means object files.

Both of these are spelled out in the licenses themselves.  Have you read
them lately?

> I mean it doesn't meet the objective of working with proprietary 
> software any better.

Why is static linking tied to proprietary applications in your mind? 
What's wrong with dynamic linking?

-- 
MySQL++ Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus?unsub=1

Thread
License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionChris Frey9 Nov
    • Re: License QuestionWarren Young9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionWarren Young9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionChris Frey9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionWarren Young9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionWarren Young9 Nov
    • Re: License QuestionChris Frey9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionChris Frey9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionWarren Young9 Nov
    • Re: License QuestionChris Frey9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionWarren Young9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionWarren Young9 Nov
  • Re: License QuestionChris Frey9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
RE: License QuestionAllan Hardy9 Nov
Re: License Questionmysqlpp10 Nov