Subject: RE: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:54:39 -0700

 Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:54:39 -0700
> The FSF argument is that Totem is a derivative of gstreamer. The LGPL
> would then require Totem to be under restrictions that are not present
> in the GPL. This presents a conflict, so instead gstreamer is treated as
> if it's GPLed. I don't think anyone would claim that the library is a
> derivative work of the application that uses it.

Isn't this allowed because the LGPL expressly permits recipients to
distribute the library under the GPL? See LGPL  4. It has nothing to do
with any derivative work argument.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Garrett [mailto:mjg59@srcf.ucam.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:27 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
> 
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:20:47PM +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> > Since GStreamer apparently can't remain (under LGPL) it must be a
> > derivative of Totem, right?
> 
> The FSF argument is that Totem is a derivative of gstreamer. The LGPL
> would then require Totem to be under restrictions that are not present
> in the GPL. This presents a conflict, so instead gstreamer is treated as
> if it's GPLed. I don't think anyone would claim that the library is a
> derivative work of the application that uses it.
> 
> --
> Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org