Re: [libxml++] 2.8.0 needed

[Christophe de VIENNE <cdevienne alphacent com>]

Murray Cumming wrote:

> > BTW, I already updated the website with the new versions, the licence
> > clarification (although I did remove the static linking part because I
> > have doubts about it, I'll try to get more information).
> >    
>
> What do you doubt?
Here is what I read in the LGPL text (version 2.1 shipped in libxml++ 
package) about static/dynamic linking. There is only two places the word 
shared or statically is used :

In the preamble :

    73   When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or 
using
    74 a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
    75 combined work, a derivative of the original library.  The ordinary
    76 General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
    77 entire combination fits its criteria of freedom.  The Lesser General
    78 Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with
    79 the library.


From this I understand that there is no big difference between linking 
statically of dynamically.

Then in Section 6:

   278   You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the
   279 Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are 
covered by
   280 this License.  You must supply a copy of this License.  If the work
   281 during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
   282 copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference
   283 directing the user to the copy of this License.  Also, you must 
do *one*
   284 of these things:
   285
   286     a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
   287     machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
   288     changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
[...]
   297
   298     b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
   299     Library.  A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run 
time a
   300     copy of the library already present on the user's computer 
system,
   301     rather than copying library functions into the executable, 
and (2)
   302     will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
   303     the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
   304     interface-compatible with the version that the work was made 
with.
   305
[then points c, d and e]


What I understand from this is that the use of a shared linking is one 
of the options proprietary projects have, but it's not an obligation if 
one of the other conditions is respected (ie a, c, d or e).

None of the words 'shared', 'static' ant 'dynamic' can be found anywhere 
else in the License.

This is why I have doubts. If you think I misunderstood the license, I 
welcome any clear explanation. Although the simpliest way to close the 
discussion is to ask the question to the fsf.


Regards,


Christophe

--
Christophe de Vienne