Subject: Re: conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:59:48 +0100

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 11:54:39AM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > 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.

Yes, but if the work weren't a derivative of gstreamer there'd be no 
need to invoke section 4 (since the LGPL wouldn't apply to the work)
-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org