> I think Dale is right here. The difference between GPL and LGPL has
> nothing to do with the rights of the original author, and has nothing to
> do with creating new versions of a code.
Perhaps, but more importantly, it seems to address 'who' is allowed to use
the existing code. "Proprietary
Programs" may not stay proprietary if they use libraries covered by the
Ordinary GPL. They must use
libraries covered under the LGPL.
> The GPL permits the users of the program for the normal thigs the
> is for, for free of charge, even for commercial use (for example with a
> drowing program you can drawings that you sell later).
For "normal" things -- programs yes; libraries no. I think GNU's logic
here is that programs generate stuff
and then dissappear. Libraries, on the other hand, are included verbatim
in the generated product (resulting
executable file). Hence, parts of them are in the final commercial
product that gets shipped.
> The GPL strict in a way that if you modify the program, or take a peace
> code from the program, and create a brand new program, than that program
> inherit the GPL license.
True. The implication of this is that the Ordinary GPL, of which you
speak, when applied to these
libraries, requires that "Proprietary Programs" be made into "Free
Programs". Hence, though a commercial
proprietary program may use a library under the Ordinary GPL, they must
then release ALL of the source code
of their program. I believe that this is part of the "viral" nature of
the Ordinary GPL as spoken of in earlier
postings. Hence the need for the LGPL. Expecially when it comes to
commercially using 'gcc'.
> The same is for compilers. With OBC you can compile your commerciale
> because that is the normal use of a compiler (compile other apps), but
> you take a peace of code from OBC and use it in your app, than you must
> licence your app under GPL.
Compilers are a little tricky because they link in libraries. From
reading the info at that link, if you
use an Ordinary GPL library (and it is not clear to me what the difference
would be between the code of
OBC and a "library" provided by OBC), you must then provide source for
your entire program. Hence, if
Dale provides his code to OBC as a "library" (whatever that means) using
the Ordinary GPL, and your
program links against it, your entire program is now tainted and becomes
> But what is the situation with libraries? The normal use of libraries is
> including them in other apps! Here is a contradiction! From one point of
> view, it is the _use_ of the library, and as that, it is free even for
> commercial use. But from the other point of view it is inclusion of a
> piece of code from the library, and that mean the new program must be
> under GPL. That what has made clear in LGPL.
I think that this is incorrect. As I read that link, that is made clear
in the Ordinary GPL, not the LGPL.