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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: Corey Minyard Subject: Re: Open Source Licensing (was: Wanted: Ada STL. Reward: Ada's Future) Date: 1999/02/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 442522930 Sender: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com 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$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79pphk$fa5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Wonderforce Research Reply-To: minyard@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com writes: > 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 would read it as a compiler is a "major component" of the operating system and since the linker is part of that major component, the linker need not be supplied. > > I think part of the problem is that this is really geared towards proper > object libraries, not files of reusable source code. > Yes, you are right. I'm going to change my license from LGPL to something else. I'm figuring out what to change it to now. -- Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@acm.org Work: minyard@nortelnetworks.com UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com