Licensing question

[Dominic Wise]

Thanks for identifying the relevant part of the license, and for
clarifying the situation wrt separate DLLs. Very helpful. I'll give the
rest of the license a good read for future reference.

Dominic

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 09:53 -0800, Daniel Remenak wrote:
> Dan Kegel is correct.  You can create a DLL containing LGPL code and
> load it from a proprietary application, as long as the source to the
> DLL is distributed.
> 
> >From the LGPL Preamble:
> 
> "This license, the GNU Lesser General Public License, applies to
> certain designated libraries, and is quite different from the ordinary
> General Public License. We use this license for certain libraries in
> order to permit linking those libraries into non-free programs.
> 
> "When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using
> a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
> combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary
> General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
> entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General
> Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with
> the library."
> 

> --Daniel Remenak
> 
> On 1/4/06, Dominic Wise <dominic.wise at ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hmmm... I thought from Dan Kegel's earlier response that it would be OK
> > to put the function into a separate library (DLL) and release this
> > library under a separate license to the rest of the application. It's a
> > pity if this is not permissible.
> >
> > Anyone else have any thoughts on this? The 'inspiration' route seems
> > like cheating to me. I would much rather simply use the Wine code in a
> > way that is compatible with the LGPL, if this is possible. If not, I
> > probably just won't tell the developer working on this where to find the
> > Wine code.
> >
>