[GLLUG] LGPL and GPL - linking and distribution

[Mike]

Comments...

Charles Ulrich wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Mike <msg at msu.edu> wrote:
> It depends on whether libraryA.dll is licensed under the GPL or the
> LGPL. The LGPL explicitly allows this whereas the GPL does not. If
> libraryA is dual-licensed under both, it's presumed that the LGPL will
> apply. It would be silly to pick the GPL only to violate it by linking
> proprietary code against it.
So putting a proprietary binary in the same protected memory space is 
wrong for GPL, but not for LGPL.  Is same memory space considered 
linking?  (What about the GNU java.  It loads byte-codes into its own 
memory space.  Is that considered linking?)

> You wouldn't license an installer file any more than you'd license a
> zip file or tarball, or CD image. The license of the software inside
> is what matters.
> 
That's interesting because I ran Firefox, went to "About..." and it said 
"copyright... all rights reserved...".  When you go to "about:license" 
and "about:license#exceptions" you see a different license for the 
official binaries, and something they call a "EULA" (doesn't GPL/LGPL 
apply to both source and binary files?).  Firefox is supposedly totally 
MPL/GPL/LGPL, yet what about all the other ones in "about:license"?

>>  What about copyright?
> 
> libraryA.dll retains the copyright of whoever wrote it. The author of
> programB.exe retains his or her copyright to it. Copyright says, "this
> code is mine and I'll do with it what I want." In the Open Software
> world, that usually means placing the code under an open source
> license and expressly granting permission to people to modify and
> redistribute it under a few specific conditions. Copyright is what
> gives open source licenses power because if someone decides to
> disregard a license (say, the GPL), they can theoretically be held
> accountable for violation of copyright.
> 
It seems if someone distributes some their own GPL/LGPL code, they can 
later redistribute the same code under a proprietary license too.  Or, 
later version is totally under a proprietray license.  With copyright 
power that's possible?

> You _can_ say "all right reserved" in reference to programB.exe since
> you wrote the code and thus hold the copyright to it.
 >
Seems saying "all rights reserved" is typical.  When publishing as 
GPL/LGPL is there an additional choice about copyright?  For example 
(1), this is GPL and I give up all copyrights to it.  For example (2), 
this is GPL.  For example (3), this is GPL + it's copyrighted.  I guess 
in the 2nd case the code is automaticlly copyrighted these days in the US.