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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,effb80d4bb7716dd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Re: Open Source Licensing (was: Wanted: Ada STL. Reward: Ada's Future) Date: 1999/02/09 Message-ID: <79pphk$fa5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 442432040 References: <790f4q$3l@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <36B856E4.D921C1D@bton.ac.uk> <79cc3q$mms$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.141530.1@eisner> <79d0db$6h5$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.171318.1@eisner> <79dp2o$s2h$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36ba730b.35540068@news.pacbell.net> <79eq4l$m1a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36bb301f.2303870@news.pacbell.net> <79fmg1$fn0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79fvk4$npp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79nfkk$gpf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x13.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Feb 09 16:59:38 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1999-02-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , minyard@acm.org wrote: > dennison@telepath.com writes: > > > > Paragraph 3 of section 6 looks like it would require a Windows user to > > provide a linker to anyone they distribute the executable to! > > A DLL or shared library should be sufficient to meet this requirement. > The paragraph after paragraph d) in that section states that you don't > have to give them the linkers, compilers, etc. The passage we are referring to reads: "For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable." It looks as if the intent is to allow rebuilding of the executable when a newer version of the LGPL library is released. It seems to say that if a compiler and linker normally comes with the OS, (eg: Unix) a developer doesn't need to distribute it with their executable that used the GPL'ed code. But that is not the case for Windows, so they would have distribute a linker with their binary if they use LGPL software on Windows. Either way they'd have to distribute all their object files so relinking can occur. I think part of the problem is that this is really geared towards proper object libraries, not files of reusable source code. > How a generic might fit into this would be questionable. Would it be > a "definition file" and thus recompiling would not be possible as > stated in that paragraph? I'd guess so. I hadn't thought about the generic issue. T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own