Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

From: Christer Weinigel
Date: Thu Sep 28 2006 - 09:51:13 EST

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hah then read LICENSE.LGPL!
> """Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the
> ordinary GNU General Public License. This license, the GNU Lesser
> General Public License, applies to certain designated libraries, and
> is quite different from the ordinary General Public License. We use
> this license for certain libraries in order to permit linking those
> libraries into non-free programs."""
> If the GPL does not mention linking at all, and therefore does not
> really forbid it, why do we need an LGPL to allow linking then?

Clarification, just as the system call clarification in the Linux
kernel COPYING file. By explicitly allowing dynamic linking the LGPL
makes it clear that it is ok and avoids a lot of legal uncertainty.
It may be that the that linking doesn't legally create a derived work,
and that a bunch of the claims in the GPL are invalid, but to find out
somebody has to bring it to court, get a judgement (not a settlement),
and appeal it all the way to the supreme court. And to be really sure
they'd have to do it in just about every country too.


"Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?"

Christer Weinigel <christer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at