From: Richard Lyman Date: 2004-08-06T08:04:23+09:00 Subject: Re: Amazing GUI toolkit with visual designer & Ruby Integration Humm.. You said two things... 1. LGPL / GPL / {insert name of license} says... 2. I translate... ... and left out a third... 3. The creators of the license say... What do Lyle or Jeroen say? (Yes Lyle - _I_'ve read your posts... but have others?) -Rich On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 07:51:27 +0900, H. Simpson wrote: > > > Sander Jansen wrote: > > >>I'm not a lawyer so this post is just an opinion from an unqualified > >>stranger. > >> > >>GPL and LGPL is very dangerous to closed-source commercial projects > >>unless you fully understand the license and know exactly what you are > >>doing. > >> > >>Regarding Fox-Toolkit, look at the bottom of their license page and read > >>the explanation the Fox-Toolkit LGPL Addendum: > >> > >> http://www.fox-toolkit.org/license.html > >> > >> "Static linking with a modified copy of the Library, however, would > >>deny the community the benefit of these modifications, as these > >>modifications would now be locked up inside a closed binary executable, > >>so therefore we must insist on the original GNU Lesser General Public > >>License when the Library has been modified." > >> > >>*TRANSLATION:* if you modify Fox-Toolkit and statically link it to your > >>multi-million dollar commercial application, then you must release not > >>only the changes to Fox-Toolkit but your commercial application too in > >>order to comply with the terms of the license! > >> > >>Now for comparison, look at the FLTK exceptions to their LGPL license: > >> > >> http://www.fltk.org/COPYING.php > >> > >>If anyone tells you that GPL and LGPL > > > > > > (correct me if I'm wrong) > > > > So whats the difference? You still have to follow the LGPL: > > > > (FLTK license) > > If you link the application or widget to a modified version of FLTK, then the > > changes to FLTK must be provided under the terms of the LGPL in sections 1, > > 2, and 4. > > > > Which means: > > > > if you modify FLTK and statically link it to your > > multi-million dollar commercial application, then you must release not > > only the changes to Fox-Toolkit but your commercial application too in > > order to comply with the terms of the license! > > > > Sander > > > > > > Again, I'm not a lawyer so my translations are simply opinions of an > unqualified stranger on the internet. > > The difference is very simple: > > A. If you statically link your app to a modified FLTK, your app is > still EXEMPT from the license and only those "changes made to FLTK" must > be comply with the license. > > B. But if you statically link to a modified Fox-Toolkit, your app is > NOT EXEMPT and considered a "derivative work of the [LGPL] Library" and > must comply with the terms of the LGPL regarding such work. > > If you don't mind the terms of the LGPL regarding "derivative work" then > this discussion is irrelevant to you. But if you don't want your app to > be bound by the terms of LGPL regarding "derivative work" then you > should not statically link your app to a modified Fox-Tookit. > > And once again, I state for the record that I don't mind either the > GPL/LGPL approach and the BSD/MIT approach to licencing. I simply > cannot use the GPL/LGPL stuff in some (but not all) of my projects > unless there are sufficient exemptions (like FLTK's exemptions to LGPL). > > QUOTE FROM FLTK LICENSE > "3. Static linking of applications and widgets to the FLTK library > does not constitute a derivative work and does not require the author to > provide source code for the application or widget, use the shared FLTK > libraries, or link their applications or widgets against a user-supplied > version of FLTK. > > If you link the application or widget to a modified version of FLTK, > then the changes to FLTK must be provided under the terms of the LGPL in > sections 1, 2, and 4." > > MY TRANSLATION: The first paragraph (3) makes apps statically linked to > FLTK exempt from the license. Then the second paragraph states that if > we link to a modified version of FLTK, the "changes to FLTK" must be > provided under the terms of the license. Therefore, the application is > still exempt from the license when linked statically to a modified FLTK > because nothing stated takes the exemption away. > > Fox-Toolkit on the other hand, would require the application itself to > also be released under the LGPL. Which has very different consequences > to closed-source projects that which to use Fox-Toolkit and find > themselves needing to tweak Fox-Toolkit. Note the following quote: > > QUOTE FROM FOX-TOOLKIT LICENSE RATIONALE: > > "Static linking with a modified copy of the Library, however, would deny > the community the benefit of these modifications, as these modifications > would now be locked up inside a closed binary executable, so therefore > we must insist on the original GNU Lesser General Public License when > the Library has been modified." > > MY TRANSLATION: This means there is no LGPL exemption for static linking > if Fox-Toolkit is modified. The exemption only applies to UNMODIFIED > Fox-Toolkit. Which means if you statically link to a modified version > of FOX-TOOLKIT, then your entire application is considered a derivative > of an LGPL library which means you must comply with LGPL > terms/restrictions for your entire application. See below. > > QUOTE FROM LGPL: > > "However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library > creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it > contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the > library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. > Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables." > > MY TRANSLATION: If you statically link to LGPL library, then your > application is considered a "derivative of the Library" rather than a > "work that uses the library". > >