Once upon a time, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm(a)ATrpms.net> said:
> > Are you sure? glibc is not GPL, it's LGPL. and how
would a vendor in
> > 2006 be able to ensure that his binaries can relinked with glibc from
> > 2010?
>
> Did you read what I wrote? I said LGPL, not GPL.
Sorry, indeed you did.
> As for how the vendor can ensure anything, that is the vendor's
> problem.
No, not legally. If any contract has unfulfillable clauses these get
dropped.
The vendor doesn't have to make something that will work with random
glibcs; just modified versions of the same glibc they used (as long as
the modified version is interface-compatible).
> The LGPL requires any work statically linked to the library be
> distributed with (or with an offer for) the source and/or object code so
> that the end-user can modify the library and relink the work.
Can you quote that in the license, because I think you're quoting the
GPL, not the LGPL.
Go read it yourself; section 6a in /usr/share/doc/glibc-2*/COPYING.LIB
(it is a little long to quote).
> Any vendor distributing a binary statically linked to glibc (or
any
> other LGPL library) without including source and/or object code (or an
> offer to get source and/or object code) is violating the license.
I think that's exactly the difference between GPL and LGPL ...
No, the difference is that the vendor can include only object code;
source code is not required. The GPL makes no mention of linking
(static or dynamic).
I really suggest you read the license; you have a copy (or maybe more
than one) on your system. It is pretty straight forward.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.