jdow wrote:
From: "Erwin Rol" <mailinglists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 20:57 -0700, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)
wrote:
jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: "Jeff Vian" <jvian10@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 21:40 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
>>
Up until recently I worked for a company that developed and marketed
a closed source, Linux based, network monitoring product
(http://www.vericept.com). The company lawyers saw no problem with
us building and selling a closed source product that included calls
to a variety of GPLed and LGPLed libraries. As has been extensively
discussed over at Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net) and elsewhere on
the 'net, headers and interfaces are *not* protectable elements under
copyright law. The only way the GPL kicks (via copyright law) in is
if you actually modify executable GPLed code for your product. At
worst, you would then need to make only these changes to the GPLed
code available as source (there's also nothing that says the
maintainer has to accept your changes; just publishing them is
sufficient).
The GPL kicks in if you distribute your product. If your program needs a
GPL library the program is a derived work from that library and so if
you distribute that program you have to distribute it in a GPL
compatible way (for example by putting the program under the GPL).
If you have a LGPL library the use of that library is not seen as a
derived work and hence you are free to choose the license for your
program.
What happens if I discover, after months of development, that some
LGPLed library I used actually itself uses a GPLed library and was
mis-licensed? I'm toast. This seems to me to be too big a risk for
me to spend much of any time trying to make a living off GPL tainted
software. I might try to make a reputation with it. But I'd not expect
it to be the sole source of money to keep my computers powered let
alone keep me powered.
Even if the library is properly LGPL, if you need to link with
*another* library, you must be able to ship that library. The
LGPL states flatly that you must provide all the parts necessary
to rebuild the program, including compilers and linkers (unless
they are commonly supplied with the target OS), and other
libraries. If you can't ship some other library in a form which
the end user can use to rebuild, and reverse engineer to fix
defects in the third parties' code, then you cannot distribute
your program. Carefully read clauses 5 and 6 of the LGPL.
This is intentional. Part of Richard Stallman's goal is the destruction
of capitalism in software development, which he views as some sort of
evil. I have exchanged some e-mails back in 1984-1985 with him. He's
some sort of social communist (though not very political).
Interestingly, he doesn't mind maintainers and distributers getting
paid. Only developers, and only objects to them being paid in certain
ways. I'm afraid I find his position rather difficult to understand,
let alone defend. But I think I *do* understand the GPL and LGPL (though
the latter has some pretty confusing claims in it).
I assure you, I shall never release any of my software under either
GPL or LGPL, since I disagree with the goals of both. I have
released some stuff into the public domain, and I have released
some stuff with source provided, but not redistributable unless
unchanged, and I have released stuff under NDA, and I have
released stuff as executable only, no permission to reverse
engineer. But never, never, never GPL nor LGPL.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
