My application cannot use dlls for security reasons then I cannot consider Regina and its LGPL license; ooRexx has no problem on this field.
Have you ever consider releasing Regina on a less restrictive license like MIT or similar to ooRexx's allowing free use, no need to release sources, and static linking?
Thanks.
Last edit: foxpat 2021-03-03
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I am not a lawyer, but the LGPL is a little more flexible than that. Allowing a compiler to statically link an LGPL licensed work does not in and of itself copyleft the whole. See https://copyleft.org/guide/
It comes down to lawyers trying to figure out if a work is based on LGPL or uses LGPL. If the build system allows user freedom to swap out all the LGPL bits and replace it with their own, you are probably Using LGPL, which is what the intent is. Allow Use. Copyleft wording comes in when works are Based on LGPL code that an end-user can not swap out at will (well, will and a build system that they control for re-creating an executable. It doesn't need to be hot swappable, but if it can be swapped out, the new work is likely Using the library and not beholden to copyleft wording). Things were worded in a way that allows an optimizing compiler to pull in exact copies of object code at compile time or dynamically at run-time. As long as the end user is free to replace those LGPL sections, the independent work can still be proprietary. If they need to touch on the independent work to allow for end-user freedom, then copyleft rules apply as Based On. If not, it's going to treated as a simple Use of, even if the compiler statically links in all or bits of it when it creates an executable.
Umm, as far as I've been told when working with the FSF and Richard Stallman with the GnuCOBOL package. libcob, the LGPL run-time may or may not be pulled by a C compiler into the executable. We build shared libraries, but the end-user compiler might optimize to include some fragments when building from source. That does not in itself make the whole application a copyleft work. If the new work needs to tweak libcob to properly function and those pieces are hidden from the end-user, then it gets into legal areas where a judge may be asked to decide if it's a use of or based on. The FSF needs a reason to call something Based on and will always try to allow for use of. There is wording to allow compilers to do what they think is best in terms of the technology without that becoming an obstacle to end-user freedom. As long as an end-user can exercise their freedoms, the LGPL does not really care if the output is static or dynamic. It cares that the user has the freedom to swap out free software components to suit needs and wants.
Otherwise, it would be way too easy to disallow glibc in GNU/Linux, without all works ever pumped out by a Linux box being copylefted to LGPL and eventually GPL. That was not the intent of LGPL. The intent is for LGPL free libraries to be used, and that end-users can replace those if wants be.
Umm, not a lawyer. I cannot state that this is legal advice. It isn't, only opinion. But I do talk with Richard Stallman, and have discussed a few things about libcob with the FSF.
Have good, make well,
Blue
Last edit: Brian Tiffin 2021-03-04
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
LGPL requires dynamic linking
Government/Military requires no LGPL
This is an old codebase sourced on IBM I do not see why LGPL is needed;
I think today the LGPL license does not bring new code and spooks potential users...
Last edit: foxpat 2021-03-05
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The LGPL license was about the only Open Source license available when
Regina was released by Anders Christensen, the original author, back in
the early 1990's.
I approached Anders about changing the license a few years ago and he
was not in favour of a change.
I too am not a lawyer, but I'm frustrated that I have maintained the
code since 1993; about 3 years after Anders wrote the code, but I
believe I still need the permission of the author to change the license.
Perhaps if there was a concerted effort by Regina users to convince
Anders to change the license we would all be better off.
Not sure what the reference to IBM is in this thread; the Regina code
has never had any association with IBM.
Cheers, Mark
On 6/3/21 3:50 am, foxpat wrote:
LGPL requires dynamic linking
Government/Military requires no LGPL
This is an old codebase sourced on IBM I do not see why LGPL is needed;
I think today the LGPL license does not bring new code and spook
potential users...
Feel for you, Mark. It is an unfortunate thing that licensing takes up so much time for volunteer programming. I.e. the busybox / toybox fiasco. I'm more and more on Tom Landley's side every time I look at busybox vs toybox.
And many thanks to you for the decades of effort.
Cheers,
Blue
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
One issue that seems to rise is the indemnity clauses and no warranty with free software. That only seems to block DoD from using free software shipped as binary only, as it leaves no out. But free software usually ships with source, and that is enough of an out for the Department to feel in control of their own domain. At least that's my read on part 7 of that DoD guidance.
But, to avoid the issues, it might be easier to try and find a different Rexx if that better meets needs and requirements. It all comes down to meeting requirements (well, and not being overwhelmed with nebulous legal issues).
Have good, make well,
Blue
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi, I'm sorry if I mentioned IBM and Regina was developed 100% free from their code.
I'm also not a lawyer and I do not really want to argue about LGPG static linking or how the military use LGPL components. I'm just the one that codes here.
It would be nice hearing Anders' opinion on this,
but if LGPL is mandatory for Regina fortunately ooRexx is an alternative.
Thanks
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi guys, evaluating Regina and ooRexx
My application cannot use dlls for security reasons then I cannot consider Regina and its LGPL license; ooRexx has no problem on this field.
Have you ever consider releasing Regina on a less restrictive license like MIT or similar to ooRexx's allowing free use, no need to release sources, and static linking?
Thanks.
Last edit: foxpat 2021-03-03
I am not a lawyer, but the LGPL is a little more flexible than that. Allowing a compiler to statically link an LGPL licensed work does not in and of itself copyleft the whole. See https://copyleft.org/guide/
Part 10, in particular https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech11.html#x14-10000010
It comes down to lawyers trying to figure out if a work is based on LGPL or uses LGPL. If the build system allows user freedom to swap out all the LGPL bits and replace it with their own, you are probably Using LGPL, which is what the intent is. Allow Use. Copyleft wording comes in when works are Based on LGPL code that an end-user can not swap out at will (well, will and a build system that they control for re-creating an executable. It doesn't need to be hot swappable, but if it can be swapped out, the new work is likely Using the library and not beholden to copyleft wording). Things were worded in a way that allows an optimizing compiler to pull in exact copies of object code at compile time or dynamically at run-time. As long as the end user is free to replace those LGPL sections, the independent work can still be proprietary. If they need to touch on the independent work to allow for end-user freedom, then copyleft rules apply as Based On. If not, it's going to treated as a simple Use of, even if the compiler statically links in all or bits of it when it creates an executable.
Umm, as far as I've been told when working with the FSF and Richard Stallman with the GnuCOBOL package. libcob, the LGPL run-time may or may not be pulled by a C compiler into the executable. We build shared libraries, but the end-user compiler might optimize to include some fragments when building from source. That does not in itself make the whole application a copyleft work. If the new work needs to tweak libcob to properly function and those pieces are hidden from the end-user, then it gets into legal areas where a judge may be asked to decide if it's a use of or based on. The FSF needs a reason to call something Based on and will always try to allow for use of. There is wording to allow compilers to do what they think is best in terms of the technology without that becoming an obstacle to end-user freedom. As long as an end-user can exercise their freedoms, the LGPL does not really care if the output is static or dynamic. It cares that the user has the freedom to swap out free software components to suit needs and wants.
Otherwise, it would be way too easy to disallow glibc in GNU/Linux, without all works ever pumped out by a Linux box being copylefted to LGPL and eventually GPL. That was not the intent of LGPL. The intent is for LGPL free libraries to be used, and that end-users can replace those if wants be.
Umm, not a lawyer. I cannot state that this is legal advice. It isn't, only opinion. But I do talk with Richard Stallman, and have discussed a few things about libcob with the FSF.
Have good, make well,
Blue
Last edit: Brian Tiffin 2021-03-04
LGPL requires dynamic linking
Government/Military requires no LGPL
This is an old codebase sourced on IBM I do not see why LGPL is needed;
I think today the LGPL license does not bring new code and spooks potential users...
Last edit: foxpat 2021-03-05
The LGPL license was about the only Open Source license available when
Regina was released by Anders Christensen, the original author, back in
the early 1990's.
I approached Anders about changing the license a few years ago and he
was not in favour of a change.
I too am not a lawyer, but I'm frustrated that I have maintained the
code since 1993; about 3 years after Anders wrote the code, but I
believe I still need the permission of the author to change the license.
Perhaps if there was a concerted effort by Regina users to convince
Anders to change the license we would all be better off.
Not sure what the reference to IBM is in this thread; the Regina code
has never had any association with IBM.
Cheers, Mark
On 6/3/21 3:50 am, foxpat wrote:
Feel for you, Mark. It is an unfortunate thing that licensing takes up so much time for volunteer programming. I.e. the busybox / toybox fiasco. I'm more and more on Tom Landley's side every time I look at busybox vs toybox.
And many thanks to you for the decades of effort.
Cheers,
Blue
Starting with the whole I am not a lawyer thing, and this is simply an opinion.
That's not my take on it, but licensing is an unfortunate bear when it comes to rights from a developer perspective.
This I don't believe to be true, at all. Otherwise no U.S. government department could use GNU/Linux or glibc.
https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/
Read over part 7.
One issue that seems to rise is the indemnity clauses and no warranty with free software. That only seems to block DoD from using free software shipped as binary only, as it leaves no out. But free software usually ships with source, and that is enough of an out for the Department to feel in control of their own domain. At least that's my read on part 7 of that DoD guidance.
But, to avoid the issues, it might be easier to try and find a different Rexx if that better meets needs and requirements. It all comes down to meeting requirements (well, and not being overwhelmed with nebulous legal issues).
Have good, make well,
Blue
Hi, I'm sorry if I mentioned IBM and Regina was developed 100% free from their code.
I'm also not a lawyer and I do not really want to argue about LGPG static linking or how the military use LGPL components. I'm just the one that codes here.
It would be nice hearing Anders' opinion on this,
but if LGPL is mandatory for Regina fortunately ooRexx is an alternative.
Thanks