@@ -3880,60 +3880,60 @@ 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 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
those who modify or redistribute the software.
\section{Additions to the Preamble}
Most of LGPL's Preamble is identical, but the last seven paragraphs
Most of the LGPL's Preamble is identical, but the last seven paragraphs
introduce the concepts and reasoning behind creation of the license,
presenting a more generalized and briefer version of the story with which
we began our consideration of LGPL\@.
we began our consideration of the LGPL\@.
In short, FSF designed LGPL for those edge cases where the freedom of the
In short, FSF designed the LGPL for those edge cases where the freedom of the
public can better be served by a more lax licensing system. FSF doesn't
encourage use of LGPL automatically for any software that happens to be a
encourage use of the LGPL automatically for any software that happens to be a
library; rather, FSF suggests that it only be used in specific cases, such
as the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item To encourage the widest possible use of a Free Software library, so
it becomes a de-facto standard over similar, although not
interface-identical, proprietary alternatives
\item To encourage use of a Free Software library that already has
interface-identical proprietary competitors that are more developed
\item To allow a greater number of users to get freedom, by encouraging
proprietary companies to pick a Free alternative for its otherwise
proprietary products
\end{itemize}
LGPL's preamble sets forth the limits to which the license seeks to go in
chasing these goals. LGPL is designed to ensure that users who happen to
The LGPL's preamble sets forth the limits to which the license seeks to go in
chasing these goals. The LGPL is designed to ensure that users who happen to
acquire software linked with such libraries have full freedoms with
respect to that library. They should have the ability to upgrade to a newer
or modified Free version or to make their own modifications, even if they
cannot modify the primary software program that links to that library.
Finally, the preamble introduces two terms used throughout the license to
clarify between the different types of derivative works: ``works that use
the library,'' and ``works based on the library.'' Unlike GPL, LGPL must
the library,'' and ``works based on the library.'' Unlike the GPL, the LGPL must
draw some lines regarding derivative works. We do this here in this
license because we specifically seek to liberalize the rights afforded to
those who make derivative works. In GPL, we reach as far as copyright law
allows. In LGPL, we want to draw a line that allows some derivative works
copyright law would otherwise prohibit if the copyright holder exercised
his full permitted controls over the work.
\section{An Application: A Work that Uses the Library}
In the effort to allow certain proprietary derivative works and prohibit
others, LGPL distinguishes between two classes of derivative works:
``works based on the library,'' and ``works that use the library.'' The