Re: Can LGPL be used for non-libraries

[Isaac]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:59:23 +0200, Daniel Qarras <dqarras@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> 
>> Daniel Qarras writes:
>> 
>>>Surely if I make some minor changes to, e.g., OO.o's Writer it does not
>>>turn into "a software library". How come that OO.o and other non-library
>>>programs can use LGPL even if they not "libraries"?
>> 
>> There should be a "Copyright" file covering this and other exceptions and
>> alterations.
> 
> I inspected a bit more; GPP (Generic Preprocessor) is a GNU package, 
> licenced under LGPL 2.1, not a software library, and copyrighted by FSF 
> and GPP authors. There are two files that refer to licensing issues and 
> they are COPYING and README. COPYING is just a verbatim copy of LGPL 
> text. README just refers to COPYING for licensing terms. If there should 
> be a "Copyright" or similar file covering exceptions such as software 
> being non-library, is there now in fact a licensing problem with GNU GPP?
> 
> GPP page at FSF is at: http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/GPP.html
> 
> Sorry for being pedantic here but I am considering to use LGPL for a 
> software package that is not a software library in any sense and 
> therefore I would need to know exactly how to do it when LGPL is 
> actually requiring modifications to be software libraries.

What rights are hoping to allow people to take advantage of that
are not available under the GPL?  

Isaac