- From: Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>
- To: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
- Cc: alan lxorguk ukuu org uk, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Questions
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:47:17 +0000 (GMT)
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > spreads by transplantation and combination of code: if you copy some
> > GPL-covered code into your program, the GPL comes with it.
> Actually the GNOME platform is in it's most part provided under the
> LGPL which avoid this issue. This is actually a very important feature
> of the platform (the platform being the set of GNOME libraries used to
> built the desktop and associated applications, which themselves can use
> a different licence as long as it's compatible with the LGPL).
> Instead of fighting over the way one qualifies licences, I think there
> is a productive debate to have in that domain w.r.t. Bonobo. While there
> is no incentive in the project to try to change the LGPL or similar rule
> for the libraries in the platform, Bonobo components are a different kind
> of libraries. While they can be linked with the application using the
> linker when building binaries, they can also be selected dynamically
> *upon user demand* to provide some capabilities of the program. Like for
> kernel modules this blurs the line between what is within the application
> or not. The questions I have as a result:
> - should the GNOME project requires that Bonobo components be released
> under the LGPL to be part of the platform (I tend to think so)
It would probably make a lot of things easier and thus be a worthwhile
thing to do. At least IMVHO.
> - how do we deal with licence compatibility between the applications
> and the Bonobo components.
> An interesting example would be a closed source application with a
> built-in bonobo component to render HTML pages, but allowing the user
> to pick up his component of choice to render them in a preferred way
> (like Nautilus does). If there is an HTML bonobo component provided in
> the user's desktop but released under the GPL, would the user selecting
> that component for use in this application a Licence infrigement ? If yes
> how would the user know ? And how should this issue be handled in practice
> without making this a nightmare for the users ?
If the component is talked to via CORBA (a strictly out of process
component) then its use is clearly not covered by any source licence, and
its not clear whetever and what kind of limitations as to in what kind of
programs make use of it can be imposed by any licence.
It's just a slightly more advance version of connecting to another program
> Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
> veillard redhat com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
> http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
I see a dark sail on the horizon
Set under a dark cloud that hides the sun
Bring me my Broadsword and clear understanding
] [Thread Prev