[linux-elitists] LGPL compliance

[Shlomi Fish]

On Friday 13 March 2009 14:51:26 Eugen Leitl wrote:
> A quick question: I caught some local code monkeys using LGPL
> licensed code about to be shipped in a proprietary product.
> In order to assure we're compliant, do we have
> to isolate the LGPL code into a dynamically linked library,
> or is it enough to use a statically linked library using
> unmodified LGPL code and ship the full source of the LGPL code
> and the license along with it without disclosing the proprietary
> code statically linked to it? IANAL, so I don't exactly know what
> qualifies as a derivative work.

The Wikipedia seems to have the answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#Differences_from_the_GPL

>
> I presume that we have to use a dynamic linking approach, but
> I'd like to check to make sure before making the people jump through
> a couple of extra hoops.
>

The dynamic linking approach would be safer legally. If you wish to statically 
link the library, then according to the Wikipedia, you must provide a building 
environment that will allow to link the proprietary code against a newer or 
modified version of the LGPLed library.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

> Thanks.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Stop Using MSIE - http://www.shlomifish.org/no-ie/

God gave us two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we
read.