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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > >