Quoting Thomas Barregren <thomas@webbredaktoren.se>:
Could you please explain this "legal difference".
LGPL libraries allows for use of the binary version of that library by other binaries without infecting the using binary with the GPL while GPL libraries (static or dynamic linked) force the GPL on the binaries using the library. There is no difference for distribution of the LGPL binary or source. Note, the libstdc++ library adds other statements of use so that you can include its header files in your proprietary source with infecting that source or binary with the GPL. I find it amusing that a discussion of "non-GPL *PHP* apps" is ensuing because PHP itself isn't L/GPL. I would almost label this thread as an example of oxymoron. But, however, my use of the Drupal API (a CMS library covered by a version of the GPL license) requires that my source also be GPL. If my code can be used without the Drupal library then that requirement doesn't fit and I am free to license as I please. If my source requires another library that isn't GPL but still requires Drupal (a GPL licensed library) then I am still forced to cover my source with GPL. My use of the non-GPL licensed library does not force Drupal to the license of the other library. My use of the non-GPL licensed library along with Drupal doesn't force my code to be covered by the other library either unless it is ``copyleft'' as well in which case I'm screwed. All-in-all, I can use Drupal along with all of the other programs I use. Drupal CVS can store contributed modules even if it includes non-GPL modules without affecting Drupal since the contribution isn't required to execute Drupal. No one can force me to not use GPL alongside non-GPL or force me to not use GPL on Windows or any other proprietary system. Earnie