Re:License implications for libc (Score 1)

The GNU Lesser General Public License says in section 6b that if you're linking with a shared library that's already present on the user's machine, you don't have to provide source code. (You still have to cite their copyright notice, though.) Meanwhile, at Red Hat's Developer Network page, they say the C library is covered by the GPL, not by either LGPL. The GNU page is surprisingly silent on the topic.

If C library was released and LGPL, and when Red Hat company makes changes to it, they can put it simply under GPL and only under GPL.

Here is the quote from the LGPL:

3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License.

So, my dear friend, if you are using Red Hat's modified C library (or not modified), consider it as GPL if they say so.

GNU site is about that not silent - they have put the explanation simply in ever LGPL and consider that people should be reading by themselves, as so many copies are distributed. Consider that putting libraries under LPGPL is from FSF discouraged.

Marko