From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Feb 21 16:13:47 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA06138
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA06096
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id QAA05847; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:11:07 -0800
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:11:07 -0800
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM>
Message-Id: <199702220011.QAA05847@kithrup.com>
To: nate@trout.mt.sri.com
Subject: Re: RMS's view on dynamic linking
Newsgroups: kithrup.freebsd.hackers
In-Reply-To: <199702212325.QAA06245.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@trout.mt.sri.com>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In article <199702212325.QAA06245.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@trout.mt.sri.com> you write:
>His view is that linking two programs is not "mere aggregation", regardless or
>whether it's static or dynamic linking. 

That sounds about right.

That's why the LGPL exists.  And why you cannot use GPL'd code in even a
dynamicly-linked library.

The LGPL was written to allow shared libraries to be created using LGPL'd
code; this was stated by many people involved with the creation of the LGPL
(I worked with/for some of them, and the issue came up *many* times).

Ignore Terry when he comes up and talks about how the LGPL doesn't work. ;)