Re: [binarycloud-dev] LGPL

[Alex B. <en...@tu...>]

> Alex,
> 
> Well, neither LGPL nor BSD force re-contribution if another product isn't
> distributed.

Correct. That is absolutely fine with me. You build some strange shit for
nasa that they want to keep, fine. Distribution is what's important.

They want to publish it, fine, but they have to contribute the changes they
have made to the base system back to the project.

I like that.

> The issue we found with LGPL is that an OS vendor (to remain nameless for a
> little while yet) was not comfortable bundling iODBC until we changed the
> license.  If you examine points 5 and 6 of the LGPL, they appear to enforce
> the same viral contribution clause, and have some contradictory language as
> far as what constitutes a 'derived work'.

This is true, to a certain extent, the language is a little muddled.

> Basically, a case could be made that everyone has to be LGPL (or GPL) with
> code they write that uses bc in any way.

"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."

I think this is what you are referring to.

section 6 states:
"As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work
that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing
portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your
choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the
customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
modifications."

Ouch, flaw in the license.

This effectively makes commercial application vendors give away source code.
It _doesn't_ make them license it under lgpl or gpl, but the above is enough
to make most commercial people a little nervous :)

I like this:
"You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library
is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.
You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution
displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the
Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of
this License."

> Now this is not so bad, but you may be restricting distribution of
> commercial products built with bc.

The distinction between "core" and "user" code is very important (and more
rigidly enforced) in r2.

Commercial distribution of binarycloud core is acceptable so long as proper
credit is given.

Commercial distribution of code in user/ is up to the copyright holder of
that code. (I.e. if you build modules within binarycloud, you retain the
copyright, and are welcome to use whatever license you desire.)

To be included in the php core of the binarycloud distro, code must be
released under the LGPL by the copyright holder, and accept that credit will
be given to the consortium (of which they would be a member)

> Also, while a lot of companies are starting to use open source, there is
> still a big aversion to GPL, and LGPL cannot be separated from that in
> lawyers' minds due to the ambiguity in points 5 and 6.
> 
> Just my .02 - I really am not adverse to LGPL, but think it's muddy water.

It's definitely more complex that "this is 100% completely free, have a nice
day" - because everyone involved needs to retain copyright and proper use of
the code they contribute. This is especially important for commercial
projects.

hey, who's up for a "BPL" (binarycloud public license) ha-ha!

:)

_a