What is the reason for section 1 of LGPL and what is the implication for section 9.

Posted by Roland Schulz on Programmers See other posts from Programmers or by Roland Schulz
Published on 2012-05-30T23:35:57Z Indexed on 2012/05/31 4:49 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 340

Filed under:

lgpl

Why was section 1 added to LGPLv3? My understanding of section 3&4 is, one can convey the combined work under any license and with no requirements from GPLv3 (besides those explicitly stated as requirements in LGPLv3 3&4). Given that, why is section 1 necessary. Wouldn't that sections 3&4 by themselves already imply anyhow what section 1 explicitly states?

I assume that I'm missing something and section 1 isn't redundant. Assuming that, does this have implications for other sections in GPLv3? E.g. does conveying a covered work under sections 3&4 fall under the patent clause of section 10 of GPLv3? Why does section 1 not also state an exception for section 10?

Put another way. Is the Eigen FAQ correct by stating:

LGPL requires [for header only libraries] pretty much the same as the 2-clause BSD license.

It it true that for conveying object files including material from LGPLv3 headers no GPLv3 patent clauses apply?

Related posts about lgpl

Dual-licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I maintain a software, a small PHP library, that is released under the LGPL version 3 license (LGPLv3). Someone wants to use the library in their software which has the GPL version 2 license. This license compatibility matrix suggests this is not possible without changing the licensing terms of one… >>> More
LGPL and Dual Licensing Ajax Library

as seen on Stack Overflow - Search for 'Stack Overflow'
Hi guys, I'm the previous founder of Gaiaware and Gaia Ajax Widgets and when I used to work there we had this rhetoric (which I have confirmed with some very smart FOSS people is correct) that when using a GPL Ajax library you're basically "distributing" the JavaScript which in turn makes the GPL… >>> More
LGPL to MIT License

as seen on Stack Overflow - Search for 'Stack Overflow'
Hi, I was wondering if it is possible to release code I am working on which uses third party code licensed under the LGPL, under for instance the MIT License? Basically I dont want to change the license of the LGPL part, I am just wondering what happens with it if I chose a different license for… >>> More
Does the LGPL allow me to do this?

as seen on Programmers - Search for 'Programmers'
I am planning to develop a commercial software using a LGPL software. In the LGPL software that I am using some functions in a class are not fully implemented. I want to modify the LGPL code so that the class and not-implemented functions are made visible outside the dll by adding dllexport infront… >>> More
How to mark that a lgpl library is modified

as seen on Stack Overflow - Search for 'Stack Overflow'
I am using an LGPL library in my code. For my needs, I need to modify the code in the library. How do I mark the jar file that it contains modified code? Some txt file in the jar? In that case, what do I write in the txt file? I will include in the license agreement that we are distributing a modified… >>> More

Developer IT