Re: License Question

On Fri, 27 May 2011 18:54:27 -0400
Ken Collins <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Why don't you dynamically link to it?
> 
> We do for normal ruby gem installs. But for Windows, most of them do
> not know how to build and install software, so we build TinyTDS with
> FreeTDS & Libiconv as static libs into the Ruby C extension

The GPL is all about the source.  The LGPL views all code from the
linker's perspective, as object code.  

The LGPL does not require the (in your example) TinyTDS source code to
be distributed, although that's acceptable.  At a minimum, any
distribution must include TinyTDS in object code form, suitable for
linking.  

Any distribution of TinyTDS should include 3 things:

0.  Advice to the user explaining the his LGPL rights.  Specifically,
it should note that TinyTDS includes FreeTDS, and that the user is free
to use another, possibly modified, version of FreeTDS instead.
1.  Instructions on where to find FreeTDS. 
2a. The ability to re-link TinyTDS with another version of FreeTDS.  
2b. Instructions, preferably with a Makefile, for linking.  This is
not strictly required by the LGPL, but it demonstrates good
intentions.  Ideally, the user can run "make" with nothing but the
distributed files (including FreeTDS) to re-generate TinyTDS.  

If someone can download TinyTDS and re-link it with the last night's
FreeTDS snapshot, you've done well.  

I'm not a lawyer, and the above is not *legal* advice.  That said, it
represents my understanding, my personal test for whether someone is
adhering to terms of the license.  If that test is satisfied, I would
never expect a problem or reason for concern.  And, as a practical
matter, it's hard to imagine legal questions being pursued without my
involvement.  

HTH.  

--jkl