On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > Namely, in the sense that it is inconsistent with the
> > similar situation in the case of libraries or even system calls.
>
> A GPL library can only be linked with other GPL-compatible code. A LGPL
> library can be linked with any GPL-compatible or GPL-incompatible code.
> The LGPL has specific clauses in it that allows you to link GPL-incompatible
> code (see LGPL paragraph 5). It seems that you're missing that distinction.
I wasn't actually missing that distinction and I am familiar with LGPL
reasonably well (had to study it as we do actually make use of it at
VERITAS). I was comparing LGPL with "Linux kernel flavour of GPL" rather
than LGPL with GPL.
>
> This is why glibc and other libraries are LGPL, not GPL. If glibc was GPL,
> all the binary-only applications in user space would have to supply their
> own C library.
>
Yes, I know.
Regards,
Tigran
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 22:00:13 EST