[Insert usual IANAL disclaimer here]
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Ilya Goldberg wrote:
[snippety]
> links to. If its LGPL ("lesser" or "library"), then you have no
> obligation.
IMHO this statement is simply false, and it's good to be careful about
what we say about open source licenses if we want corporations to adhere
to them, because they sure as hell make us adhere strictly to theirs. :-)
Unless you ONLY distribute your binaries as an unlinked object file --
which I think few people ever do (except proprietary kernel modules, as
was mentioned) -- it DOES incur several obligations.
The LGPLv2[0] contains detailed conditions under which you may
distribute not only the library itself but also any derivative works.
Derivate work is key here, since IMO it quite clearly defines any
statically OR dynamically linked code to be a derivative work which then
falls under section 6 of the license which, among other things, require
you to:
a) Allow the end user to modify the library and re-link the binary with
their own, modified library, and also reverse engineer the binary for
debugging purposes.
b) Distribute any data and utilities needed to perform the above
relinking, except for the parts that are distributed as parts of the OS or
compiler toolchain used.
c) Give prominent notice that the library is used and that the library is
covered by the LGPL.
d) Make your binary display the LGPL copyright notice, if during execution
it displays any other copyright notice.
Although most of this is easily solved by simply shipping a dynamically
linked binary and referring to e.g. the Linux distribution for the "data
and utilities" and relinking part, it's hardly "no obligations". Certainly
not so in the statically linked case. And (c) and (d) still apply to any
distribution of a proprietary binary if it's shipped already linked (even
dynamically) to the library, and the rest of the license of course if the
library itself is shipped with it in any way.
The only situation where you have "no obligation" is when you only
distribute your binaries as unlinked object code (section 5 of the
license) that contains no parts of the library (other than structures and
definitions and tiny inline functions from library headers, which are
explicitly excepted in the license text).
I suspect that a large number of corporations effectively violate these
section 6 aspects of the license (intentional or not) by interpretations
like "this isn't a desktop computer application so it doesn't count as an
executable; no user servicable parts inside, not applicable", but IMHO the
license is quite clear; it specifically identifies and distinguishes the
dynamic linking case under section 6b from completely unlinked object code
("A work that uses the library", section 5).
For the original poster -- please read the license carefully yourself.
[1] Which AFAIK is the most commonly used; I haven't read v3 -- I assume
it contains more details concering embedded firmware specifically.
Best regards
/ali
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ts-7000/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ts-7000/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|