Re: LGPL - wait a minute!

[David Sugar]

At the time we started, the LGPL had problems in wording and in terms of 
applicability to C++ class libraries.  This had to do with the nature of 
templates, to meaning of inline headers, and to definition of derivation and 
class, which suggested in effect a class library could never be LGPL'd.  I 
recall speaking about this recently with Craig Southern while in Germany.  
Like some people, since he wanted a class framework that would be licensed in 
a manner like the LGPL could then do for standard linkable C libraries, he 
choose to use something else, the MPL, for openh323, and, if given the 
current version of the LGPL back then, would have likely chosen the LGPL 
instead.

From our perspective, we simply looked at how other GNU projects tried to 
accomidate this problem, and we choose the solution that Guile (and cygnus) 
were using, in relation to object oriented frameworks, which is, rather than 
relying on the LGPL for this purpose and waiting for future versions to get 
the language correct, to use an immediate and simple license privilege over 
the standard GPL which can achieve much the same effect the LGPL was trying 
to achieve but without ambiguity.

On Sunday 28 March 2004 10:08 am, Erik Ch. Ohrnberger wrote:
> Hold on one minute!
>
> In COPYING.addendum it states:
>
> As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, permission is
> granted for additional uses of the text contained in its release
> of Common C++.
>
> The exception is that, if you link the Common C++ library with other
> files to produce an executable, this does not by itself cause the
> resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License.
> Your use of that executable is in no way restricted on account of
> linking the Common C++ library code into it.
>
> This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why
> the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
>
>
>       If this is the case, then it would appear that I can link the
> CommonC++ code into my executable and I'll still be OK for a proprietary
> end resulting program.  (Do I have this correct?)
>
>       Darn.  Now I'm very confused.  Would one of the authors of Common
> C++ Please clear this issue up?
>
>       Thanks,
>               Erik.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Ch. Ohrnberger [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 10:04 AM
> > To: 'address@hidden'
> > Subject: RE: LGPL
> >
> >
> > Edgar,
> >     I think you are right to be concerned.  Quoting now
> > from the COPYING file in the commoncpp2-1.1.1 distribution:
> >
> > This General Public License does not permit incorporating
> > your program into proprietary programs.  If your program is a
> > subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit
> > linking proprietary applications with the library.  If this
> > is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public
> > License instead of this License.
> >
> >     If this is the case, I guess I'll have to stop using
> > the library as well, even though I'm only using the object
> > persistence part.
> >
> >     Well, back to the drawing board.  My employer can't, or
> > will not, release the program that I'm writing for him as
> > open source.  I'm afraid it's a policy that I'll not be able
> > to change.
> >
> >     Erik.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: address@hidden
> > > [mailto:address@hidden On
> > > Behalf Of edgar wander
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 5:22 AM
> > > To: address@hidden
> > > Subject: LGPL
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > >    I need to release a CLOSED SOURCE software, for comercial
> > > use (enterprise
> > > commpetitive reazons). That sofware are based in Threads and
> > > Socket from
> > > Common C++ library.
> > >
> > >    In order to provide the sofware I need a binary
> > > representation: .o or
> > > executable.
> > >
> > >    I thing that, I can make Wrappers Classes in order to
> >
> > decouple and
> >
> > > isolate the cc++ library services from my code, then compile
> > > them to create
> > > a .o files, and then THIS OBJECTS FILES ARE MY PRODUCT, AND I
> > > CAN COPY RIGTH
> > > THEM. The cc++ library are then dynamic linked.
> > >
> > >   But, I wonder (because I feel "legal fear"):
> > > -- is it a really legal action ?
> > > -- Can I copy rigth the .o code, compiled using g++ ?
> > > -- where can I found specific information about, using the
> > > LGPL as a basis
> > > for CLOSED SOFTWARE ?,( the LGPL-GPL FAQ are not clear,
> > > considering that it
> > > is a legal matter !)
> > >
> > > Thanks !
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Charla con tus amigos en línea mediante MSN Messenger:
> > > http://messenger.microsoft.com/es
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-> commoncpp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp