www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/licenses gpl-faq.html


From: Joshua Gay
Subject: www/licenses gpl-faq.html
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 21:12:38 +0000

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Joshua Gay <josh>       13/06/10 21:12:38

Modified files:
        licenses       : gpl-faq.html 

Log message:
        Added two new items for whether the GPL or LGPL have different 
requirements for static vs dynamically linked modules.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.189&r2=1.190

Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.189
retrieving revision 1.190
diff -u -b -r1.189 -r1.190
--- gpl-faq.html        9 Apr 2013 06:35:37 -0000       1.189
+++ gpl-faq.html        10 Jun 2013 21:12:37 -0000      1.190
@@ -496,6 +496,17 @@
     <li><a href="#GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government release
     improvements to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
 
+    <li><a href="#GPLUSGovAdd">Can the US Government release
+    improvements to a GPL-covered program?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#GPLStaticVsDynamic">Does the GPL have different
+    requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a
+    covered work?</a></li>
+
+    <li><a href="#LGPLStaticVsDynamic">Does the LGPL have different
+    requirements for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a
+    covered work?</a></li>
+
     <li><a href="#IfLibraryIsGPL">If a library is released under the GPL
     (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it has to
     be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?</a></li>
@@ -1396,6 +1407,38 @@
 <p>If the US government uses contractors to do the job, then the
 improvements themselves can be GPL-covered.</p></dd>
 
+<dt id="GPLStaticVsDynamic">Does the GPL have different requirements
+    for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered
+    work? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#GPLStaticVsDynamic"
+    >#GPLStaticVsDynamic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>No. Linking a GPL covered work statically or dynamically with
+other modules is making a combined work based on the GPL covered
+work. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License
+cover the whole combination. See
+also <a href="#GPLIncompatibleLibs">What legal issues come up if I use
+GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software?</a></p></dd>
+
+<dt id="LGPLStaticVsDynamic">Does the LGPL have different requirements
+    for statically vs dynamically linked modules with a covered
+    work? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a href="#LGPLStaticVsDynamic"
+    >#LGPLStaticVsDynamic</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>For the purpose of complying with the LGPL (any extant
+version: v2, v2.1 or v3): </p>
+
+<blockquote>
+  <p>(1) If you statically link against an LGPL'd library, you must
+also provide your application in an object (not necessarily source)
+format, so that a user has the opportunity to modify the library and
+relink the application.</p>
+
+<p>(2) If you dynamically link against an LGPL'd library <em>already
+present on the user's computer</em>, you need not convey the library's
+source. On the other hand, if you yourself convey the executable
+LGPL'd library along with your application, whether linked with
+statically or dynamically, you must also convey the library's sources,
+in one of the ways for which the LGPL provides.</p>
+</blockquote></dd>
+
 
 <dt id="GPLOutput">Is there some way that
     I can GPL the output people get from use of my program?  For example,
@@ -3655,7 +3698,7 @@
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2013/04/09 06:35:37 $
+$Date: 2013/06/10 21:12:37 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]