Re: [xmlvm-users] status and (L)GPL

[Arno P. <ar...@pu...>]

ok, guys, the generated code of gcc, bison, xmlvm do not fall under GPL 
or L-GPL. The clarification for bison is that since there is a bit of 
library portion that needs to be linked against the generated code 
automatically makes the whole application GPL (note that bison is GPL, 
not L-GPL). Since xmlvm is licensed under L-GPL, this problem does not 
occur.

IMHO, the idea of L-GPL is to allow commercial usage. Let me be clear 
about our intentions: we (the xmlvm core team) want developers to be 
able to use xmlvm for their commercial products. My understanding of the 
L-GPL is that is like the GPL with a Classpath Linking Exception.

Arno


On 12/1/10 10:13 AM, Hansi Raber wrote:
>> Please have a look:
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
>> Section 4d
>>
>> If my rough interpretation above is correct, then I do not see how any
>> user, even with developer knowledge, would be able to modify a
>> distributed iPhone app (as one example) and be able to continue to use it.
>
> my feeling kinda agrees with thorsten,
> i'm not sure lgpl is "lose" enough because the resulting files contain
> a mix of "your" translated code that is stuffed into pre-written
> (lgpl) skeletons.
> this is neither inheritance nor linking, the two ways i know of in
> which the lgpl doesn't force the main application to be lgpl as well.
>
> i would say that most code-generating programs will have a problem like this.
> for example, look at the bison (parser generator) exception for the
> generated code:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditions.html
> (really worth the read, too long to quote)
>
> imho this is mostly the same situation. adding a similar exception or
> providing the
> skeleton files with a more liberal license (e.g. bsd) would be a safe path.
>
>
> more to this can found on the gpl-faq, which answers to "can i force
> the output of a gpl-program to be gpl as well"?
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput
> it says generally no; this is impossible because the output belongs to
> the user, however, it also says explicitly
> "For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be
> covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this
> specific case."
> this is exactly what i think the problem with xmlvm output is (at this point).
>
>
>
> best, hansi.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App&  Earn a Chance To Win $500!
> Tap into the largest installed PC base&  get more eyes on your game by
> optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
> Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> xmlvm-users mailing list
> xml...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users