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
No, not legally. If any contract has unfulfillable clauses these get
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
> 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.