[Qt-interest] LGPL compliance poll

[Kustaa Nyholm]

>>  The only difference between the two is that for libraries, LGPL allows
>> 'closed source'
>> apps to link to this library without becoming GPL  themselves. Using GPL for
>> libraries in contrast forces any app linked to  this lib to be GPL too.
>> That is the reason why Qt is LGPL and not GPL. Simply  so you can write
>> commercial, closed source (ie. non-GPL) apps with the free  edition of Qt.

That is more or less the intent and accepted interpretation of GPL and LGPL.

However, playing the devils advocate here:

All this is based on Copyright Law which is about making copying and
granting people the right to make copies.

So unless I make a copy, GPL has no power over me.

So if I write a closed source application that dynamically links to a GPL
library and distribute that application only, then I'm not making a copy
and not covered by GPL?!

My user would then get copy of the library from somewhere (even from me?)
and be able run it legally and within the terms of GPL?

It could be argued that in compiling my application I'm copying (from
the header files) parts of the copyrighted work into my application.

That is possible, even probable, but technically not necessary, so if
I wanted to I could be in compliance in that respect.

Also it is very much debatable if a function definition in a header file
constitutes an 'original' work of art by itself that merits copyright
protection status.

Interesting, never thought this in that light...

br Kusti