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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: Corey Minyard Subject: Re: Open Source Licensing (was: Wanted: Ada STL. Reward: Ada's Future) Date: 1999/02/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 442187280 Sender: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com 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$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <79nfkk$gpf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Wonderforce Research Reply-To: minyard@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com writes: > > > > 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. Right to reverse-engineer is guaranteed by law in the US (Nintento vs Galoob). What the licenses say means nothing. US Congress is working to change that, but maybe they can be stopped. > > Paragraph 3 of section 6 looks like it would require a Windows user to > provide a linker to anyone they distribute the executable to! A DLL or shared library should be sufficient to meet this requirement. The paragraph after paragraph d) in that section states that you don't have to give them the linkers, compilers, etc. How a generic might fit into this would be questionable. Would it be a "definition file" and thus recompiling would not be possible as stated in that paragraph? I'd guess so. This would be the biggest restriction that might cause me to abandon the LGPL. It does seem a little excessive and might cause headaches for a company supporting a product. > > 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"? Difficult to say. But if people are adding child packages to my library, I want them to give me the new packages, since they are extending my library. -- Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@acm.org Work: minyard@nortelnetworks.com UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com