Re: GPL violation by CorAccess?

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Steven Rostedt writes:

> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:57 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > As long as they do not statically link against LGPL (or GPL) code and as
>> > > long as they do not link dynamically agaist GPL code. And there are
>> > > probably more rules .....
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > Actually, I believe that the LGPL allows for static linking as well.
>> 
>> it does, as long as you provide the .o files of your own stuff so that
>> the end user can relink with  say a bugfixed version of library.
>
> I don't see that in the license.  As point 5 showed: "Such a
> work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
> therefore falls outside the scope of this License."

"Such a work" refers to "A program that contains no derivative of any
portion of the library."  A program that is statically linked against
the library clearly contains part or all of the library, and cannot
qualify for the lower threshold of section 5.  Section 5 is talking
about late binding to the library; dynamic linking is one example.

For programs distributed as object code that does contain part of the
library, the distributor must -- sooner or later -- comply with 6(a)
(allow the user to relink) or 6(b) (use dynamic linking).

Michael Poole