On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 07:22:00PM +0100, Tim Muller wrote (1.00): > According to the documentation, the gnet library is covered by the 'GNU > Library General Public License'. Is it correct that this is the same as the > 'GNU Lesser General Public License' and only a name change has taken place? Yes. > If yes: I understand that it is permitted to use the libary in 'proprietary' > programs. Is that correct? Does that cover dynamic linking as well as static > linking? You can link an LGPL library into a non (L)GPL program, provided that you allow your endusers the ability to re-link your application against their own version of the LGPL library, so long as the interfaces don't change (so that the end user can fix bugs in their copy of the LGPLd library, but still use your program). So, you can ship a binary, and a "link kit", or you can dynamically link against the LGPL'd library only. > I've got an application which is free with "free as in without costs" and > publicly available for download to anyone. It is only distributed in binary > form at the moment. However, I would like to rewrite part of the code using > the gnet library and, if possible, _statically_ link the gnet library. "Free without costs" doesn't affect anything. The LGPL only cares about source availability or re-linking, not cost. However, keep in mind that the copyright holders of the code can re-license it as many times as they want, so in general, sometimes you can just ask. Hope that helps, M
Attachment:
pgph9nMDyv21G.pgp
Description: PGP signature