Re: why LGPL 2.0?

[Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com>]

>> Part of this is caused by the fact that GTK++ comes with LGPL version 
>> 2, from June 1991.  This has some very confusing wording in section 
>> 5, where the first paragraph says that a program that links with the 
>> library is not a derivative work, and the second paragraph says that 
>> a program that links with the library IS a derivative work.
>
>This is a slightly long reply, but it covers what you're talking about...

unfortunately, it contains incorrect information.

>      So...? Basically, under section (5) you're screwed. If you link
>      with the GTK stuff, you form a derivative of the library and must
>      release the source code, EVEN THOUGH the source code itself is
>      not, when independent of the library, covered by the license.

AFAIK, this is absolutely and completely untrue.

the entire point of the LGPL is that you do *not* have to distribute
your source. what you have to do is to distribute your program in a
way that makes it possible for the user to relink against a modified
version of the library in question.

typically, you'd give the user a big .o file, maybe (or maybe not)
some instructions on how to link it, and thats that.

you do not ever ever ever have to release source code to your
program. if you did, there would be no point to the LGPL.

as you noted, none of this matters if you use dynamic/shared/run-time
linking against the library, because the user is automatically
"relinking" against whatever version of the library they have every
time they run the program.

--p