From: Nicholas Van Weerdenburg Date: 2004-08-07T12:11:57+09:00 Subject: 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 >