From: "H. Simpson" <nospam@...>
Date: 2004-08-06T09:27:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Amazing GUI toolkit with visual designer & Ruby Integration

Sander Jansen wrote:
>>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.
> 
> 
> Uhhh I disagree.
> 
> The first paragraph is talking about linking to the FLTK library statically.  
> The second paragraph is talking about statically linking to a MODIFIED fltk 
> librarry (a work based on the library. which should fall under LGPL, sections 
> 1, 2 & 4.)  Basically FOX and FLTK are probably saying the same things. 
> 
> Anyway, I don't want to make this an issue and I really don't care what you do 
> with FLTK, but a smart thing to do, is just mail the FLTK guys if this is 
> what they intended with the license.
> 
> Good Luck,
> 
> 	Sander
> 
> 

IMHO, Fox-Toolkit and FLTK are very clearly not saying the same things.

Fox-Toolkit specifically and clearly identifies the exemption for 
"UNMODIFIED FOX-TOOLKIT".  The use of the word "UNMODIFIED" makes it 
clear the exemption does not apply to modified Fox-Toolkit.

To make this even clearer, the author of Fox-Toolkit goes on to explain:

     "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."

On the other hand, FLTK identifies the exemption for "FLTK" without 
qualifying adjective such as the word "UNMODIFIED". They clearly state 
exactly *WHAT* must fall under the license when the app is statically 
linked to a modified FLTK in the following sentence:

"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."

The phrase "changes to FLTK" is used to identify what must be provided 
under the terms of the LGPL in cases where "application or widget" is 
statically linked to FLTK.  Since they used the term "application or 
widget" in the same sentence, it is very clear the application itself 
doesn't fall under the description of "changes to FLTK".