From: KUBO Takehiro <kubo@...>
Date: 2003-06-28T16:33:35+09:00
Subject: Re: DBD for Oracle9i

Jim Cain <list@jimcain.us> writes:

>>> I've been sure that. A non-free program which links to the LGPLed
>>> library is a "work that uses the Library" in the term of the LGPL.
>>> What I'm not certain is about the "work that is used by the Library".
>>> I've not read the license of the LGPL in that context.
>>>
>>> I read it now and found the following statements in the section 6.
>>>
>>>    It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license
>>>    restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally
>>>    accompany the operating system. Such a contradiction means you
>>>    cannot use both them and the Library together in an executable that
>>>    you distribute.
>>>
>>> The Oracle client library is a proprietary library and doesn't
>>> accompany the operating system. Hmm, contrary to my expectations the
>>> LGPL may not allow linking _to_ a non-free library.
>>>
>>> Well, I'm not familiar with legal terms. So I'll not say again about
>>> license.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>> 
>> Just reading this excerpt, I notice the sentence:
>> 
>>   Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and the Library
>>   together in an executable that you distribute.
>> 
>> My library and the Oracle client library will not be distributed 
>> together. It is up to the user of my library to acquire and install the 
>> Oracle client library.

Quote from the section 6 of the LGPL:
   For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the
   Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for
   reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special
   exception, the materials to be 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.

Hmm, some products which bundle the proprietary library have no
contradiction. But some products (including free softwares) without
the proprietary library could not be distributed.

> Oh, I should have added... a copyright-holder using the LGPL, or even 
> GPL, is free to add a special exemption for a specific non-free library 
> which it requires.

Agree.

In addition authors and users are free from the section 6 of the
LGPL. The distributors of the LGPLed library are also free from the
restriction. It is up to the distributors of the executable that uses
the LGPLed library.

I'm not interested in the philosophy. I just want to know the
restriction of the LGPL.

Cheers
-- 
KUBO Takehiro