Differences from GPL to LGPL

[Peter Roozemaal]

Javier Palacios wrote:

> That is basically static vs. dynamic linking. Most of the references
> I've found state that linking with GPL libraries means derivative work
> and the source must be GPL.
> 
> And my view is that it only happens if the linking is static. If dynamic
> linking is done, no GPL covered binaries must be released to user,
> and, at least theoretically, the released binaries should be able to use
> dinamically any library with the same API.
> 
> That has been my view for a long time, but a recent discussion within
> my current company (desperately searching for LGPL code) showed
> me that it was not a shared opinion.

While your analysis is correct for your binary, your customer, the end
user, would need a copy of the binaries of the shared library. If you
supply that copy, you implicitly accept the GPL by distributing a copy
of that shared library. And via your (incidental) distribution of the
shared library the conditions of the GPL extend to your code.

Unless (GPLv2 section 3):
> However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
> of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
> component itself accompanies the executable.

Peter.