Re: New package managment

[Jarda Benkovsky <pvt.benkovsk@pvtnet.cz>]

"Philipp Gühring" wrote:
> >you have to upgrade the binary also to use it. Static binaries are
> good >for
> >things like root's shell, chrooted ls or the likes, but nothing more.
> 
> Ok, but what if a user has no administrator access, and the needed
> libraries are missing?

install libraries locally and set LD_LIBRARY_PATH

> I do not like static linking too. But the first priority is that it
> works, and only the second priority is that it works nice, doesn´t
> consume too much memory, ...

I want both :-)

> >And BTW for binary only programs it violates GPL if you statically
> >link libc or another GPL'ed library.
> 
> My RPM package says that the libc is under the following license:
> 1981-95 Regents of the University of California. , Free Software
> Foundation, Inc.
> Is that the GPL?

In fact, libc5's various parts are covered by GPL, LGPL and BSD
licenses.
(That says my debian libc5 package).

> Does it really violate the GPL, if I link statically to a GPL
> library and include the sourcecode of the library?

Yes, it does. This is the excerpt from LGPL, which is more relaxed:

    For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
  or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
  you.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
  code.  If you link a program with the library, you must provide
  complete object files to the recipients so that they can relink them
  with the library, after making changes to the library and recompiling
  it.  And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

So you do not have to provide app sources, just object (.o) files
and library sources. In case of dynamic linking it probably means that
you must provide library sources only.

In GPL the above paragraph is stated as:

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
  gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
  you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
  source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
  rights.

It does not make distinction between library and piece of code 
cut&pasted into your file. So it rules out statically linked
binary-only apps. Whether or not it applied to dynamic linking
was debated many times. AFAIK Stallman's opinion is that the
dynamic linking is not the exception (with exception of "system libs").
But 1) I might remember it wrong 2) IANAL

					Edheldil