Quoting Thomas Barregren <thomas@webbredaktoren.se>:
Earnie,
You said that "...there is a legal difference between 'statically linked' and 'dynamically linked' (DLL) code." And "[t]hat's why the GPL and LGPL exist as two separate licenses."
I don't think that was me. I did respond to the query to explain.
Since I am not aware of a *legal difference* I wondered if I might have missed some subtlety. After all, I am not a lawyer. So that is why I asked you to "explain this 'legal difference'." Unfortunately, I didn't find the answer in your otherwise very interesting, but partly wrong, reply.
LGPL provides an exception to the use of the library API.
I claim that there is no legal difference between statically and dynamically linked code. Let us assume you have developed a program P which depends on objects or functions in a library L. Also assume that you have obtained L under GPL. Now, it doesn't matter whether P links to L at compile time (static linking) or at runtime (dynamic linking). You are in both cases obliged to use GPL when distributing P.
In fact, the preamble of LGPL v2 explicit states that there is no difference between statically linked and dynamically linked (a.k.a. shared) libraries:
"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."
As a corollary, I claim there is another motivation of LGPL. Quoting LGPL v2 again:
For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a de-facto standard. To achieve this, non-free programs must be allowed to use the library. A more frequent case is that a free library does the same job as widely used non-free libraries. In this case, there is little to gain by limiting the free library to free software only, so we use the Lesser General Public License.
In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-free programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of free software. For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-free programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system, as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
All I can say is that I agree. Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/ -- http://give-me-an-offer.com/