Re: glibc is lgpl'ed...
Navindra Umanee <navindra@cs.mcgill.ca> writes:
> Netscape license:
> You may not:
> * modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble
> LGPL license:
> 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or
> link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
> work containing portions of the Library
Holy gods, then we're back to the argument whether a dynamically linked
executable is derived from the headers used to produce it.
In the specific case of glibc I think that very strong arguments could
be made that the contents of the glibc headers are, by their nature,
NOT "contained in" the binary - and hence the executable is out of the
jurisdiction of the copyright license on the library.
In a more pragmatic mode of argument, dynamic linking *is* enough to
give the user what the LGPL is meant to protect: the opportunity to
change the library code that is run when he runs Netscape.
--
Henning Makholm
Reply to: