On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:49:38PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > > Unless these vendors include object code suitable for re-linking against > > > a different glibc, they are violating the LGPL if they link against > > > glibc. > > > > Are you sure? glibc is not GPL, it's LGPL. and how would a vendor in > > 2006 be able to ensure that his binaries can relinked with glibc from > > 2010? > > Did you read what I wrote? I said LGPL, not GPL. Sorry, indeed you did. > As for how the vendor can ensure anything, that is the vendor's > problem. No, not legally. If any contract has unfulfillable clauses these get dropped. > The LGPL requires any work statically linked to the library be > distributed with (or with an offer for) the source and/or object code so > that the end-user can modify the library and relink the work. Can you quote that in the license, because I think you're quoting the GPL, not the LGPL. > Any vendor distributing a binary statically linked to glibc (or any > other LGPL library) without including source and/or object code (or an > offer to get source and/or object code) is violating the license. I think that's exactly the difference between GPL and LGPL ... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpugv9GfchEb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
