LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw)

Posted Jul 14, 2006 1:50 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868)
In reply to: LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw) by zlynx
Parent article: LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw)

That's no change. Quoted from the current LGPL (v2.1) text...

3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this
License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this
License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this
License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared,
then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these
notices.

Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so the ordinary GNU
General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.

This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the Library into a program that is
not a library.

(Log in to post comments)

LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw)

Posted Jul 14, 2006 20:04 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

This is, in fact, why Linus didn't use the LGPL for sparse; he didn't want to permit people to make changes to it that users of sparse in proprietary applications wouldn't be allowed to use.

LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw)

Posted Jul 14, 2006 22:01 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Was LGPL even around when Linus made his licensing change from his original 'no commercial use, return all changes' style license (I think that was how it was) to GPL?

LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw)

Posted Jul 14, 2006 22:29 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

I don't think so, but I was referring to the license on sparse (the static checking/C parsing program), not Linux. Linux wouldn't really make sense under the LGPL, anyway; I don't think there's any non-GPL code that kernel code could logically be loaded into.