On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:59:23 +0200, Daniel Qarras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > >> Daniel Qarras writes: >> >>>Surely if I make some minor changes to, e.g., OO.o's Writer it does not >>>turn into "a software library". How come that OO.o and other non-library >>>programs can use LGPL even if they not "libraries"? >> >> There should be a "Copyright" file covering this and other exceptions and >> alterations. > > I inspected a bit more; GPP (Generic Preprocessor) is a GNU package, > licenced under LGPL 2.1, not a software library, and copyrighted by FSF > and GPP authors. There are two files that refer to licensing issues and > they are COPYING and README. COPYING is just a verbatim copy of LGPL > text. README just refers to COPYING for licensing terms. If there should > be a "Copyright" or similar file covering exceptions such as software > being non-library, is there now in fact a licensing problem with GNU GPP? > > GPP page at FSF is at: http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/GPP.html > > Sorry for being pedantic here but I am considering to use LGPL for a > software package that is not a software library in any sense and > therefore I would need to know exactly how to do it when LGPL is > actually requiring modifications to be software libraries.
What rights are hoping to allow people to take advantage of that are not available under the GPL? Isaac _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
