From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9ea66d3dcd0bfcf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-03 07:40:03 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!oleane.net!oleane!nnrp.oleane.net!not-for-mail From: Thierry Lelegard Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:39:51 +0200 Organization: CANAL+ Technologies Message-ID: <3AF16DB7.2B810A47@canal-plus.fr> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: host227.canal-plus.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------C8CECF40D142B8A951654811" X-Trace: s1.read.news.oleane.net 988900792 15453 194.2.208.227 (3 May 2001 14:39:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@oleane.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 14:39:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender: "Thierry Lelegard" (Unverified) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr]C-CCK-MCD C+ (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,zh-CN,zh-TW Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7117 Date: 2001-05-03T16:39:51+02:00 List-Id: Il s'agit d'un message multivolet au format MIME. --------------C8CECF40D142B8A951654811 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ted Dennison wrote : > I don't think its that kind of library. The LGPL works best with run-time > libraries (libxx.so, xx.dll, etc.); the kind of stuff that it makes sense to > distribute separately in binary form. Many of the provisions in it make no sense > outside of that context. I am not a lawyer (far from that), not even a GNU lawyer. However, I used to think that LGPL precisely does not apply to shareable libraries (.so), but only to object libraries (.a). When you distribute a commercial software on Linux (for instance), you do NOT redistribute any .so file, you use the one that is on the end-user's system. On the other hand, you redistribute part of the content of the .a files. This is why, in my opinion, LGPL applies to .a files, while GPL is fine for .so files. Am I wrong? After all, forking a process running the user's "ls" executable (under GPL) or dynamically invoking a routine from the user's libreadline.so (also under GPL, unlike libc.so which is under LGLP) makes no difference in terms of software redistribution. -Thierry ____________________________________________________________________________ Thierry Lelegard, "The Jazzing Troll", Email: thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr CANAL+ Technologies, 34 place Raoul Dautry, 75906 Paris Cedex 15, France Tel: +33 1 71 71 54 30 Fax: +33 1 71 71 52 08 Mobile: +33 6 03 00 65 75 ____________________________________________________________________________ --------------C8CECF40D142B8A951654811 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="thierry.lelegard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Carte pour Thierry Lelegard Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="thierry.lelegard.vcf" begin:vcard n:Lel�gard;Thierry tel;cell:+33 6 03 00 65 75 tel;fax:+33 1 71 71 52 08 tel;work:+33 1 71 71 54 30 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.canalplus-technologies.com org:Canal+ Technologies adr:;;34, Place Raoul Dautry;Paris;;75516;France version:2.1 email;internet:thierry.lelegard@canal-plus.fr fn:Thierry Lel�gard end:vcard --------------C8CECF40D142B8A951654811--