- From: linas linas org (Linas Vepstas)
- To: Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>
- Cc: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>, alan lxorguk ukuu org uk, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Questions
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:18:25 -0600
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 10:47:17AM +0000, Sander Vesik was heard to remark:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > 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
'dynamically upon demand' isn't a good criteria, in part because there
are/have been versions of 'ld' that can relink a static program on
demand. (At least, some versions of ld allow your to do this, although
you do need to have a library that hasn't been stripped of symbols.
e.g. on AIX, you can 'ld -o my_sh whaked.o /bin/sh' to create
a binary called my_sh that is bin/sh but relinked to use a differnt .o)
When you can dynamically relink statically linked programs, then this
line gets murky.
> > - 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.
Bill & the gpl faq hit this on the head ---
The library side needs to be LGPL'ed. The server side can be anything,
as long as its a different process/address space.
There used to be some orbit stunt that could avoid the process switch,
and stay in the same address space, but I think that died....
> > - 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 ?
Yes. You 'd need the library side to be LGPL'ed to be able to answer
'no'. Interesting question though: who infiringed, the guy who wrote
the code to allow dynamic linking to GPL'ed libraries, or the guy who
ran the program and caused it to load?
> > If yes
> > how would the user know ? And how should this issue be handled in practice
> > without making this a nightmare for the users ?
This is a strong argument for requirnig the client side of the bonobo
compnenent to be LGPL'ed, just to avoid the confusion.
pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <linas linas org>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933
] [Thread Prev