Re: SAX2 ... missing features?

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

The "library exception" clause reads as follows:

 As a special exception, if you link this library with
 other files to produce an executable, this library does
 not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered
 by the GNU General Public License. This exception does
 not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable
 file might be covered by the GNU General Public License. 

The GPL is of course at http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html

I'm not a historan of the GPL/LGPL, but the short
version is that the "library exception" exists, among other
reasons, so it's clear that embedded applications (which can
be highly proprietary :) can safely use GPL'd libraries no
matter how they link (static linking being an issue otherwise).

That's not the LGPL.  And I'll correct myself -- GNU Libc
uses LGPL, for historical reasons I guess.

- Dave


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Brennan" <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>
To: "'David Brownell'" <david-b@pacbell.net>; "Michael Brennan" <Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: SAX2 ... missing features?


> Maybe I should read the license. :-) Is "GPL-with-library-exception" the
> same as LGPL? The key thing for me is that since I work on commercial
> software, I need a license that permits me to integrate it with a "larger
> body of work" without the larger work having to use the same licensing
> terms. If "GPL-with-library-exception" permits that, than I can probably use
> it. We are currently using software covered by the Mozilla and Sun Public
> Licenses, for instance, without any issues.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 5:28 PM
> > To: Michael Brennan
> > Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> > Subject: Re: SAX2 ... missing features?
> > 
> > 
> > Ah, well lots of us are quite happy with things that are simpler
> > than W3C's schemas, but we don't need to start that again!
> > 
> > I must say I'm perplexed by folk who are happy using proprietary
> > libraries (binary), but won't use "GPL-with-library-exception".
> > GPL has fewer restrictions:  never a viral NDA to worry about,
> > never any contamination of your apps just from using the library.
> > 
> > So far as I know, no vendor other than Microsoft has found any
> > problem using, for example, the GNU C library with proprietary
> > closed-source applications.  Every vendor shipping apps on
> > Linux does exactly that.  IBM and Oracle are just some of the
> > better known names; neither has gives away their core IP when
> > they link against GNU Libc.
> > 
> > - Dave