opencxx-users

RE: [Opencxx-users] Re: License issues

[Stefan S. <sse...@ar...>]

Hi Grzegorz,

> From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@he...]
> Sent: September 27, 2004 04:29

> I don't understand what you are challenging. Clients have to 
> fulfill certain
> obligations if they link against LGPL-ed library:

[...]


> Section 6:

yes, that's exactly the point. As long as you fulfill these
obligations you are fine. Do you see any problems with section 6 ?
It seems to me to be mostly a technical question, i.e. as long
as you are able to either keep the LGPL-covered code in a dll
(and thus allow users to replace it as long as they stay binary 
compatible) or you distribute the necessary infrastructure (such
as the full source code) of the entire code to allow users to relink
it, you should be fine. I really don't see why this shouldn't be
possible.

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [Opencxx-users] Re: License issues

[SF M. E. <el...@us...>]

> > Merging code enhancements means creating derivative work of code covered 
> > by LGPL. Such work can only be distributed under LGPL (or GPL). This 
> 
> sorry, but that's entirely false, both, for GPL as well as LGPL.
> 
> > means that you have to fulfill certain obligations if you want to 
> > distribute a program that uses the library (see LGPL item 6)
> 
> this isn't the same as what you said above. Nothing forces you to change
> your license just because you link to LGPL code. It is true however that
> for the part of the code that is covered by LGPL you have to follow some
> rules (such as the ones you refer to).
> 
> Also note that we are *not* talking about GPL here.

What is your opinion to the answer for the question "How is that different from the GNU {Lesser,Library} GPL?" on the page "http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html"?

Is the running discussion "(L)GPL and C++ templates issue" (http://groups.google.de/groups?group=comp.lang.c%2B%2B.moderated&threadm=4174046c%241_2%40news.bluewin.ch) of any help for the further OpenC++ development?

Regards,
Markus

RE: [Opencxx-users] Re: License issues

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@he...>]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Stefan Seefeld wrote:

> > From: Grzegorz Jakacki [please don't expose my e-mail to spammers]
> > Sent: September 27, 2004 04:29
>
> > I don't understand what you are challenging. Clients have to
> > fulfill certain
> > obligations if they link against LGPL-ed library:
>
> [...]
>
>
> > Section 6:
>
> yes, that's exactly the point. As long as you fulfill these
> obligations you are fine. Do you see any problems with section 6 ?
[...]

Yes. Those obligations are an obstacle if you want to link commercial
software against LGPL-ed library. This is one of the reasons why Boost
rejects LGPL-ed source code:

  Commercial use is only permited for the binaries produced from LGPL source
  in a very restricted form. The end user must be permited to reproduce the
  binary form.[1]

BR
Grzegorz

[1] http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?Boost_License/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License_-_LGPL
    Legal analysis of the LGPL provided by Berkman Center for Internet &
    Society, Harvard Law School for Boost.

##################################################################
# Grzegorz Jakacki                       Huada Electronic Design #
# Senior Engineer, CAD Dept.              1 Gaojiayuan, Chaoyang #
# tel. +86-10-64365577 x2074               Beijing 100015, China #
# Copyright (C) 2004 Grzegorz Jakacki, HED. All Rights Reserved. #
##################################################################