[uClibc]RE : LEGAL: LGPL vs. proprietary.

[Matt Bosworth]

Tom --

   IANAL. . .but, as I understand it, that is the difference between 
GPL and LGPL -- LGPL allows for linking to closed source code. I'm 
not sure about static vs. dynamic linking, though.
  In any case, the links you want are : 

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#TOCLGPL

The first is a little blurb by RMS.  Here's a quote : 

>SNIP<
The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is
the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of
license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of
the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a
library makes it available only for free programs.
>SNIP< 

--Matt

> From: Tom Walsh <tom at cyberiansoftware.com>
> To: "uclibc at uclibc.org" <uclibc at uclibc.org>
> Subject: [uClibc]LEGAL: LGPL vs. proprietary.
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> This question has been "haunting" me for a while.  I understand the
> statically / dynamically linking to the glibc requires me to distro
> my
> app under the GPL, but how about the LGPL?  Can I statically link my
> app
> to uClibc and still not have to publish?
> 
> I ask as I have some commercial apps that need to remain 'closed',
> yet I
> need the functionality of the uClibc.
> 
> Comments / links welcome!
> 
> TomW
> 
> -- 
> Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
> http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
> "Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc at uclibc.org
> http://uclibc.org/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
> 
> 
> End of uClibc Digest


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/