[development] Modules that integrate non-GPL PHP apps violate the GPL.
earnie at users.sourceforge.net
Sun Sep 2 20:05:50 UTC 2007
Quoting Thomas Barregren <thomas at webbredaktoren.se>:
> 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
> 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
All I can say is that I agree.
More information about the development