Once upon a time, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > > > 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 vendor doesn't have to make something that will work with random glibcs; just modified versions of the same glibc they used (as long as the modified version is interface-compatible). > > 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. Go read it yourself; section 6a in /usr/share/doc/glibc-2*/COPYING.LIB (it is a little long to quote). > > 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 ... No, the difference is that the vendor can include only object code; source code is not required. The GPL makes no mention of linking (static or dynamic). I really suggest you read the license; you have a copy (or maybe more than one) on your system. It is pretty straight forward. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
