[cairo] Pango License
behdad at behdad.org
Wed Dec 15 14:55:09 PST 2010
On 12/15/10 17:28, Thomas Stover wrote:
>> Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:
>> On Linux, they don't have to ship the LGPL code, they just use it.
> That is clearly insane. Why bother having a license that says, "here are
> some rules for library X, but if you distribute library X via a third party
> then the rules don't apply." I'm not disputing you, I just had not thought
> of that one.
It makes sense to me. As you pointed out yourself, the intent of the LGPL is
to allow users upgrading the library. When you don't ship the LGPL library,
you are not bound by any restrictions rising from that intent.
>> There are considerable problems with shipping LGPL code. They are
>> clear if you read the text of the LGPL. For example, if you want to
>> binary (embedded firmware, executable, installer, etc), then by item
>> number 6
> I just read that section. On a technical note, isn't part of the idea of a
> shared/dynamic library so that the library can be swapped without
> necessitating a recompile, provided (like the text says) the same library
> definition holds? Why the need for object files? (more of a rhetorical
Because embedded people have to produce one single firmware image. Depending
on how you define linking, that's similar to static linking the library. So,
yes, as long as you distribute as shared libraries and user can easy swap it
out and replace it, you are fine. But as I said, if you want to ship one
executable, it's not that easy anymore.
That said, I guess there is room for a ELGPL (Even Lesser GPL) that only
requires making your modifications available but doesn't have the replacement
> Clearly I need to do more research. Is the situation
> better/worse/unchanged in your opinion with LGPLv3?
It's been rewritten, but looks along the same lines to me.
It has wording to prevent Tivoization (which the previous versions didn't),
but other than that, it's the same restrictions.
More information about the cairo