Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 1222
LGPL vs GPL
Last modified: 2003-12-06 14:52:32 UTC
Louis, Please add this new FAQ. It will not be what everyone wants but it explains the basic gist to someone who doesn't already know the difference. Thanks, Michelle What is the essential difference between the GPL and the LGPL? The GNU General Public License (GPL) (www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html) and the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (www.fsf.org/copyleft/lesser.html) were written by the Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org). When code licensed under the GPL is combined or linked with any other code, that code must also then be licensed under the GPL. In effect, this license demands that any code combined with GPL'd code falls under the GPL itself. When code licensed under the LGPL is dynamically linked to any other code (except for GPL'd code), that code may retain its license. In effect, this license creates a firewall between the LGPL'd code and the code to which it is dynamically linked.
Crap, Please add at the bottom (at request of Bill Roth) NOTE: This answer is intended to give a general idea of the difference between the two licenses. It was not written by a lawyer and is not intended to be used for legal purposes. Life's a beach! Michelle
accepted. BTW, you handled the potential firestorm quite well! congrats! louis
Hi Michelle, Louis, Regarding this addition to the FAQ, I recommend that the word "firewall" not be used since it might imply mistaken connotations regarding the terms of the GNU Public licenses. I would recommend that the last sentence be rewritten, additionally since "firewall"ing itself is not really logical or correct. Thanks John Heard
Thanks John, Please see the correction below for "firewall" which has been removed. Thanks, m What is the essential difference between the GPL and the LGPL? The GNU General Public License (GPL) (www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html) and the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (www.fsf.org/copyleft/lesser.html) were written by the Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org). When code licensed under the GPL is combined or linked with any other code, that code must also then be licensed under the GPL. In effect, this license demands that any code combined with GPL'd code falls under the GPL itself. When code licensed under the LGPL is dynamically linked to any other code (except for GPL'd code), that code may retain its license. In effect, this license recognizes a boundary between the LGPL'd code and the code to which it is dynamically linked.
better. I was going to suggest distinction, but boundary is superior louis
Here's the final FAQ straight from the mouth of the man himself! Please post this version: When code licensed under the GPL is combined or linked with any other code, that code must also then be licensed under the GPL. In effect, this license demands that any code combined with GPL'd code falls under the GPL itself. Code licensed under the LGPL can be dynamically or statically linked to any other code, regardless of its license, as long as users are allowed to run debuggers on the combined program. In effect, this license recognizes kind of a boundary between the LGPL'd code and the code that is linked to it. Thanks! Michelle
wow, out of the mouth of wisdom or horse's functional rear end... all the same louis will do
done
As agreed with Louis, we can close all the resolved fixed issues he owns.