From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,effb80d4bb7716dd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Open Source Licensing (was: Wanted: Ada STL. Reward: Ada's Future) Date: 1999/02/08 Message-ID: <79nfkk$gpf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 442093113 References: <790f4q$3l@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net> <36B856E4.D921C1D@bton.ac.uk> <79cc3q$mms$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.141530.1@eisner> <79d0db$6h5$1@remarQ.com> <1999Feb4.171318.1@eisner> <79dp2o$s2h$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36ba730b.35540068@news.pacbell.net> <79eq4l$m1a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36bb301f.2303870@news.pacbell.net> <79fmg1$fn0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79fvk4$npp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x16.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 08 19:58:18 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , minyard@acm.org wrote: > dennison@telepath.com writes: > > I'm currently trying to find a good open-source license to use, and this > > trips over just the issue I'm comming up against. I don't wan't to use some > > "idiosyncratic" license, because that in and of itself could somewhat limit > > the software's use. But at the same time the GPL (and even to a lesser extent > > the LGPL) seem to have unfortunate "infectious" attributes. Next chance I get > > I'll look into the Ada Community License; hopefully it's better. > > > > What is the problem with the LGPL? I used that for my components. It > allows inclusion into 3rd party programs without releasing source to > that 3rd party program. It does require that you distribute (or tell > how to get) the included library. If you make any changes to the > LGPL'ed library, you are also required to give the changes away. According to section 5(p2), an executable linked with LGPL software is a "derivative of the Library", and thus must be distributed under the rules in section 6. Section 6 seems to require that licensing terms for such derivatives must allow users to reverse-engineer the executable. That is incompatable with a typical closed-source license. Paragraph 3 of section 6 looks like it would require a Windows user to provide a linker to anyone they distribute the executable to! I also am not quite sure how a child package would be accounted for here. Would a court decide that is a modification to the library itself, or simply a "work that uses the Library"? T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own