[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
if it's right, and i suppose it is, then everything - ie EVERYTHING -
that runs on linux links to libc and therefore must be gpl (under linux
at least). that also implies that in the view of the fsf there is only
one "work" running on a linux system.
do we need to start work on an lgpl version of libc.... sigh.... just
when i thought we were winning. think i'll take a look at the intel
compilers.
rick
Aleksander Slominski wrote:
> that should get all this clarified:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html
>
> so finally there is one official FSF link to refer when discussing
> java and LGPL.
>
> alek
>
> Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>
>> I think that I'm pretty clear on GPL/LGPL; I've been part of these
>> kinds of discussions for a very long time, since the posting of the
>> first GPL. I actually used both commercial Emacs products (CCA and
>> Unipress I think they were called) at work at GE Lighting in 1985;
>> products that caused Richard to write GNU Emacs and the GPL 1.0.
>> I've also imported GPL/LGPL software into several large companies
>> over the years so I jump into this discussion out of long habit.
>>
>> You are right that the one question asked specifically about Java and
>> GPL, which was probably an oversight by the questioner. The last
>> sentence of Eben's answer however makes it clear that LGPL+Java
>> wouldn't be a problem. His answer on LGPL was: "If the author of the
>> other code had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your
>> contribution to the combined work could be released under any license
>> of your choosing."
>>
>> sdw
>>
>> Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that there is some confusion here between GPL and LGPL. Or at
>>> least if you folks aren't confused you are confusing me, and by
>>> extension possibly others. Note that the notes below differ in which
>>> one they refer to, and some of the links in other postings have, I
>>> believe, been to discussions of GPL whereas the initial question was, I
>>> think, about LGPL. As I understand it GPL and LGPL are different, and
>>> LGPL is weaker than GPL. See, for example,
>>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php, which I beieve is
>>> the "authoritative source" on LGPL somebody was asking for earlier.
>>>
>>> Just speaking personally, LGPL may be weaker than GPL, but I read the
>>> document referenced above and I must confess that I still find it a bit
>>> scary. I do understand that many people are comfortable with these
>>> licenses, but I think it's really a good idea to understand them
>>> clearly
>>> if you are going to have anything to do with software using them.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-xml-binary-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-xml-binary-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Stephen D.
>>> Williams
>>> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:47 PM
>>> To: John Cowan
>>> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org; public-xml-binary@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: licensing ... [Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases
>>> [Re: [xml-dev] [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that is not right. Eben, who as I mentioned often represents
>>> FSF in
>>>
>>> some sense and as a technical law professor should know, didn't draw
>>> that distinction. I would argue that it is an artificial semantic
>>> conclusion.
>>>
>>> LGPL allows you to use a library in a program (or another library)
>>> that
>>>
>>> has any license, but not distributing a modified library without
>>> source code. Using a library means any use, while modifying it
>>> means actually changing the source code that went into the library.
>>>
>>> Subclassing is not different semantically from creating a new class
>>> with
>>>
>>> an instance of the LGPL'd class, creating a corresponding public
>>> method for every public method in the original class, and calling,
>>> with or without additional semantics, the corresponding LGPL'd
>>> method. Both simply use the LGPL'd class without modifying its
>>> source code.
>>>
>>> The intent of LGPL is to allow use of any kind in any kind of
>>> program while maintaining the integrity of the LGPL'd library. If
>>> you include the library and decide to call one of your own methods
>>> instead of one in
>>>
>>> the library, you haven't distributed a modified version of the library.
>>>
>>> You could in fact distribute a binary-only commercial library or
>>> application that uses the unmodified LGPL'd library.
>>>
>>> sdw
>>>
>>>
>>> John Cowan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Stephen D. Williams scripsit:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Eben:
>>>>>
>>>>> The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the
>>>>> rules
>>>>> of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified.
>>>>> The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> static
>>>
>>>>> or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your
>>>>> code, in
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a
>>>>> new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be
>>>>> distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the
>>>>> author of the other code
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>> the combined work could be released under any license of your
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> choosing,
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that leaves open the question of subclassing. If some
>>>> application classes are subclasses of classes in the LGPL library,
>>>> does that make the total application a "work based on the
>>>> library"? The FSF seems to think so (as does the Apache Software
>>>> Foundation), because a Java program is essentially one big library.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
begin:vcard
fn:Rick Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick
email;internet:rjm@zenucom.com
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
