From: Allen B. <al...@vr...> - 2003-06-18 02:42:43
|
Roy Dennington wrote: > Allen, > > >>I believe we should be able to deal with it by adding an addendum to the >>current license. Since this is an issue that other libraries have had >>to deal with, has anyone else seen a modified LGPL that explicitly >>allows for use of inline code? > > > Thanks for a quick reply. Does this mean you and the other > Authors intend to allow commercial use for software that > Qualifies as a "Work that Uses the Library"? I believe that all the developers would agree that we want to allow gmtl to be used in commercial applications. The main reason we used the LGPL is because we are familiar with it and it places a copy-left restriction on the code. I have no problem with people using the code in commercial application, but I would like to require anyone using it to contribute changes back to the community. > I cannot find a modified LGPL License that specifically > addresses a Template-based Library with extensive inlining. > I was able to find several examples of licenses modifying LGPL > to allow static linking that loosen the restrictions on binaries. > > The problem with LGPL in this context is that it is > Impossible to qualify as a "Work that Uses the Library" > Because of the inlining. Further, it is impossible to > Comply with Section 6a which requires allowing users > To re-link with object code. (LGPL works best for libraries > That can be compiled into separate shared libs.) Agreed. This is definitely an area that is not covered well by the LGPL. It becomes very difficult to legally separate what is a derived work of the library code and what is the application code. I will look at the licenses below and see if I can find anything we can use. One other library I would like to look at is the standard C++ library that is included with g++. It seems like the template libraries in that code would suffer from the same issues. -Allen > Thanks, > Roy > > Here are a few examples of software that uses modified LGPL: > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/wxwindows.php > > http://www.fltk.org/COPYING.php > > > And, http://qwt.sourceforge.net > [I couldn't find the license online] > > Qwt License > Version 1.0, January 1, 2003 > > The Qwt library and included programs are provided under the terms > of the GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (LGPL) with the following > exceptions: > > 1. Widgets that are subclassed from Qwt widgets do not > constitute a derivative work. > > 2. Static linking of applications and widgets to the > Qwt 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 > Qwt libraries, or link their applications or > widgets against a user-supplied version of Qwt. > > If you link the application or widget to a modified > version of Qwt, then the changes to Qwt must be > provided under the terms of the LGPL in sections > 1, 2, and 4. > > 3. You do not have to provide a copy of the Qwt license > with programs that are linked to the Qwt library, nor > do you have to identify the Qwt license in your > program or documentation as required by section 6 > of the LGPL. > > > However, programs must still identify their use of Qwt. > The following example statement can be included in user > documentation to satisfy this requirement: > > [program/widget] is based in part on the work of > the Qwt project (http://qwt.sf.net). > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2.1, February 1999 > > [... LGPL text snipped] > > -- -- Allen Bierbaum al...@vr... -- PhD Candidate txtmsg - 515...@us... -- VR Juggler Team www.vrjuggler.org -- Virtual Reality Applications Center www.vrac.iastate.edu |