Copyleft/guide Changeset - c6063eca3c00

...

@@ -3771,16 +3771,16 @@ smaller versions for special purpose use. However, our goal was to create

a C library that would provide equivalent functionality to these other C

libraries on a Free Software operating system (which in fact happens today

on modern GNU/Linux systems, which all use the GNU C Library).

Unlike existing GNU application software, however, the licensing

implications of releasing the GNU C Library (``glibc'') under the GPL were

somewhat different. Applications released under GPL would never

somewhat different. Applications released under the GPL would never

themselves become part of proprietary software. However, if glibc were

released under GPL, it would require that any application distributed for

the GNU/Linux platform be released under GPL\@.

released under the GPL, it would require that any application distributed for

the GNU/Linux platform be released under the GPL\@.

Since all applications on a Unix-like system depend on the C library, it

means that they must link with that library to function on the system. In

other words, all applications running on a Unix-like system must be

combined with the C library to form a new whole derivative work that is

composed of the original application and the C library. Thus, if glibc

...

@@ -3796,21 +3796,21 @@ where many C libraries already exist, many of which could easily be ported

to GNU/Linux, a GPL'd glibc would be unlikely to succeed. Proprietary

vendors would see the excellent opportunity to license their C libraries

to anyone who wished to write proprietary software for GNU/Linux systems.

The de-facto standard for the C library on GNU/Linux would likely be not

glibc, but the most popular proprietary one.

Meanwhile, the actual goal of releasing glibc under GPL --- to ensure no

Meanwhile, the actual goal of releasing glibc under the GPL --- to ensure no

proprietary applications on GNU/Linux --- would be unattainable in this

scenario. Furthermore, users of those proprietary applications would also

be users of a proprietary C library, not the Free glibc.

The Lesser GPL was initially conceived to handle this scenario. It was

clear that the existence of proprietary applications for GNU/Linux was

inevitable. Since there were so many C libraries already in existence, a

new one under GPL would not stop that tide. However, if the new C library

new one under the GPL would not stop that tide. However, if the new C library

were released under a license that permitted proprietary applications

to link with it, but made sure that the library itself remained Free,

an ancillary goal could be met. Users of proprietary applications, while

they would not have the freedom to copy, share, modify and redistribute

the application itself, would have the freedom to do so with respect to

the C library.

...

@@ -3859,13 +3859,13 @@ known to exist.

LGPLv2.1~\S12 adds the same features as GPLv2~\S8. These sections are

used to allow original copyright holders to forbid distribution in

countries with draconian laws that would otherwise contradict these

licenses.

LGPLv2.1~\S13 sets up FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S9

LGPLv2.1~\S13 sets up the FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S9

does for GPL. Meanwhile, LGPLv2.1~\S14 reminds licensees that copyright

holders can grant exceptions to the terms of LGPL, just as GPLv2~\S10

reminds licensees of the same thing.

Finally, the assertions of no warranty and limitations of liability are

identical; thus LGPLv2.1~\S15 and LGPLv2.1~\S16 are the same as GPLv2~\S11 and \S

...

@@ -3875,13 +3875,13 @@ As we see, the entire latter half of the license is identical.

The parts which set up the legal boundaries and meta-rules for the license

are the same. It is our intent that the two licenses operate under the

same legal mechanisms and are enforced precisely the same way.

We strike a difference only in the early portions of the license.

Namely, in the LGPL we go into deeper detail of granting various permissions to

create derivative works, so the redistributors can make

create derivative works, so the re-distributors can make

some proprietary derivatives. Since we simply do not allow the

license to stretch as far as copyright law does regarding what

derivative works must be relicensed under the same terms, we must go

further to explain which derivative works we will allow to be

proprietary. Thus, we'll see that the front matter of the LGPL is a

bit more wordy and detailed with regards to the permissions granted to