On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:49:38PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Unless these vendors include object code suitable for
re-linking against
> > a different glibc, they are violating the LGPL if they link against
> > glibc.
>
> 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 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.
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 ...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net