Re: Amazing GUI toolkit with visual designer & Ruby Integration

I've read a few articles that state that LPGL has some strange legal 
quirks and that it'll be fascinating to see what happens the first time 
it's seriously challenged, if, unfortunately, that happens.

I hadn't heard of the reverse-engineering clause.  That seems bizarre.  
What does that accomplish? It seems like static-linked LPGL is a broken 
license.

My other question: what is the compelling reason  to statically link, 
rather then dynamically link? And, are there in between modes (lazily 
linked?) that make the clauses grey? I would almost imagine that the 
definitions of statically linked vs. dynamically linked could eat up 
months of court time :).

Regards,
Nick

Ben Giddings wrote:

> Lothar Scholz wrote:
>
>> With this i think i could supply only the diff, the original tgz file
>> and put a paragraph like this on the website.
>>
>> --------------------
>> If you want to use your own FOX library with this program you can 
>> substitute the
>> delivered "fox.so" by downloading the files "patch.diff" and
>> "fox-1.1.51.tgz" (or your compatible one) from my website and then build
>> it with the following command line:
>>
>> tar -xzf fox-1.1.52.tgz ; patch "patch.diff" "fox-1.1.51" ; cd 
>> fox-1.1.52; .configure ; make
>>
>> Replace "fox.so" in the program directory with the freshly build
>> ".lib/fox.so" file.
>> --------------------
>>
>> And then i put a small comment to all the other things i tell my user
>> in the About box.
>>
>> Is this okay ?
>
>
> I think that's ok, but like I said, I don't fully understand the 
> license.  I don't think you could get away with linking to 
> fox-1.1.51.tgz on another website.  I think the intent of the LGPL is 
> to ensure that if you're using an LGPLed library, other people can 
> build it too.  If somehow the original fox-1.1.51.tgz got moved or 
> removed, you would still have a full and complete distribution on your 
> site.
>
>> BG> "For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the 
>> BG> Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for 
>> BG> reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special 
>> exception, the
>> BG> materials to be distributed need not include anything that is 
>> normally
>> BG> distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major 
>> components
>> BG> (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the
>> BG> executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the 
>> executable."
>>
>> This could be a show stopper for LGPL libraries, especially on windows.
>>
>> How can i include a commercial compiler like MSVC (it's free for
>> download but you can't distribute it on you own website) into my
>> modified library ?
>> There are LGPL'ed Delphi libraries available, how can they confirm
>> with the license.
>
>
> As someone else posted, I think that paragraph says that you don't 
> need to include components that are normally distributed with the 
> compiler or kernel of the operating system on which the executable runs.
>
> In other words, in your example above, you use "patch", but since 
> "patch" is normally provided with a development environment, you don't 
> need to provide it.  If, on the other hand, you used some very 
> specialized tool that doesn't normally come with the compiler (say a 
> custom C preprocessor) then you may need to redistribute it.
>
>> What happened when in 4 years someone want to compile the program and
>> the compiler evolved backward incompatible ?
>
>
> I don't think that's your problem to solve.  If the original tarball 
> you modified wouldn't work with the new compiler, it's not up to you 
> to make it work.  If you happen to know that there are specific 
> dependencies in your modifications so they only work with one 
> compiler, you might need to document that.
>
>> Right i wish that more people would offer there libraries under a BSD
>> license. I guess that most people would stop using LGPL libraries if
>> they knew all the problems that can raise from the simple use.
>> But as far as i know no court in the world had ever accepted the LGPL,
>> there are only a few cases for the GPL and this license seems to be
>> compatible with the current law (at least in the USA and in Germany).
>>
>> Reading only a few sections of the LGPL then i think that it is just
>> an invalid license.
>
>
> There's a fundamental difference in the BSD and LGPL licenses.  The 
> BSD license is as close as you can say to "Here's something I created, 
> do what you want with it, just don't blame me if it's broken."  The 
> GPL is fundamentally different.  It says "Here's something I created.  
> Do what you want with it, but don't try to use it in a selfish way.  
> If you make fixes or add features, share them!  Oh, and don't blame me 
> if it's broken".
>
> I think the BSD license is fundamentally more generous.  If someone 
> wants to be completely selfish, they're free to do so.  If they want 
> to share their fixes, they can do that as well.  It's obvious why 
> commercial developers prefer to use BSD licensed code.  They have very 
> few obligations when they use it.  They can basically be as 
> unscrupulous as they want with it.
>
> The GPL is an extension of political beliefs.  The people behind it 
> think the world would be a better place if information were shared 
> freely.  They don't mind anybody in the world sharing the fruits of 
> their labour.  They just want to make sure that if you benefit from 
> their hard work, that they benefit from your hard work as well.  They 
> want to make sure the exchange is a 2-way one, where you can't take 
> something without giving back.
>
> With my stuff, the license I would use would depend on what it was I 
> had made.  If it was some nifty little tool that was generally useful 
> and not terribly complex, I'd be happy to use a BSD like license, to 
> make sure that as many people as possible could benefit.  On the other 
> hand, if I spent a really long time on something, pouring hours of 
> work into it, and decided to give it away, I'd want to make sure that 
> someone couldn't turn around and refuse to share.  I'd want to make 
> sure that if someone created some product that was 95% my work and 5% 
> their work, they couldn't reap 100% of the rewards.  In that case, I'd 
> consider the GPL.
>
> What is it that makes you think the LGPL is invalid?  Are there 
> contradictory terms in the license?
>
> The thing to remember about the LGPL and GPL is that they each mention 
> one thing: "You don't have to accept these terms, but nothing else 
> gives you the right to modify and redistribute this software".  
> Really, I think the GPL and LGPL are great.  They give you the option 
> of using all kinds of software that otherwise might not exist.  Sure, 
> sometimes it's annoying because if you want to make use of the 
> software, you all of a sudden have to follow all kinds of rules, but 
> if that outweighs the usefulness of the software, there's nothing 
> forcing you to use it.
>
> Ben
>