Subject: Re: LGPL... variations on a theme
From: Bernard Lang <>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:53:42 +0200

On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 11:31:56PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Bernard Lang <> writes:
> > 2- Another organization is producing a free compiler, and an associated
> > run-time library. The run-time library is LGPLed.
> >    They are concerned that potential users will not like the
> > constraint of the LGPL on "work that uses the Library" as described in
> > section 6 of the LGPL, namely that one must provide a relinkable
> > version of the program (so as to allow free modification of the
> > library components used).
> >    The problem is not so much that people do not want to give that
> > freedom, but that the hassle of being contrained to do it for ever may
> > discourage potential users at the onset of their project.
> >    So the idea is to remove that constraint (possibly while
> > encouraging people to do it anyway).
> >    The idea is that a free system that is a bit more lax on GPLing is
> > better than a dead system (they want, need their system to live).
> >    I am not too keen on this, but I would welcome comments.
> If you remove that constraint, then they can pretty much do anything.
> They can modify the library, add all sorts of proprietary goop, and
> then release a fully linked program without providing the source to
> the modified library.  I'm not sure how this is different from the
> libgcc exception license, which is the GPL plus this paragraph:
>     In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License, the
>     Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to link the
>     compiled version of this file into combinations with other programs,
>     and to distribute those combinations without any restriction coming
>     from the use of this file.  (The General Public License restrictions
>     do apply in other respects; for example, they cover modification of
>     the file, and distribution when not linked into a combine
>     executable.)

Sorry, misunderstanding

The only constraint I consider for removal is the obligation to
provide relinkable object code for the "work that uses the Library".

The constraint to release source code for everything in LGPL would of
course stay.


         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    SIGN             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion