Timeline for LGPL obligations for using glibc
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16 at 17:45 | comment | added | Joshua |
libc_nonshared.a
|
|
| Apr 16 at 13:18 | comment | added | Brandin | @user44168 GPL v2 says that it need not be included "unless that component itself accompanies the executable." I don't recall seeing glibc itself normally being distributed with GNU/Linux programs. Of course, if it's a modified version of glibc, then LGPL would obligate that you distribute the source to that version anyway. | |
| Apr 16 at 12:32 | comment | added | Philip Kendall | Ask a court, probably jurisdiction dependent. Oracle vs Google is relevant here. | |
| Apr 16 at 12:02 | comment | added | user44168 | Note that the crucial thing I'd like to know is whether Section 5 triggers Section 6 at all, not if Section 6 offers some exceptions for providing the software bundle. To reiterate: is every binary compiled with glibc headers a derivative of glibc (in legal terms)? | |
| Apr 16 at 11:59 | comment | added | user44168 | The way I'm reading it, it's a sanity statement. When you're fulfilling your obligations to, say, GnuTLS, you don't need to include "the major components [...] of the operating system on which the executable runs" (to quote LGPL v2.1). However when you're fulfilling your obligations to glibc, glibc is not just a part of the ecosystem, it's the library that the license pertains to. | |
| Apr 16 at 11:46 | comment | added | Brandin | This is one of the reasons RMS says that "Linux" distros are properly called GNU/Linux. Of course you can make a distro with some other libc or none at all, but then it wouldn't be a general-purpose system anymore. OP could you explain why the System Library statement "does not cover this case", i.e. why you do you think glibc is not a System Library according to this definition? | |
| Apr 16 at 11:12 | comment | added | user44168 | Firstly, it still uses "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later" license. Secondly, my understanding of that statement about "Corresponding source" is that if your project is using some other LGPL library, and you're preparing a source bundle to fulfill LGPL obligations for that other library, you're allowed to skip glibc and similar system libraries. It does not cover this case. | |
| Apr 16 at 9:56 | history | answered | Philip Kendall | CC BY-SA 4.0 |