Re: Move to LGPL3

Mark Mielke wrote:
If I choose to download Oracle, and connect a GPL product to Oracle *without redistribution*, there is nothing the FSF can do to stop me.

I should qualify - I went down a path I thought Dominic was leading but away from the Gtk topic. The above is grey in terms of whether it applies to Gtk. It comes down to whether use of a published interface constitutes creating a derived work, and whether a license can reasonable prevent the use of one component to be used with another. Imagine you were given a brand new BWM on the condition that you cannot use anything but BWM parts in it. You take the BWM, and ignore the agreement. In a court of law, would the court system truly require you to give the BWM back? I doubt it. They would laugh at your accuser. Not all agreements are binding in a court of law. In Canada (not sure about the US), even a signature on a document is not legally binding (although it may influence the judge). This is pretty grey and goes to my previous post.

Suffice it to say that nearly everyone posted thus far (probably including me) is likely to be incorrect unless by accident. Even referring to wording of the license or tables on the FSF web site that purport to declare compatibility are NOT conclusive, as these are opinions, and in the case of the FSF, they are opinions with an agenda. The GPL is not well tried in a court of law, and laws change from country to country.

That said, Gtk is using the GPL license, and the FSF should be accountable for problems they create through the publishing of licenses they author. The Gtk community representatives should be active in the community that is defining the LGPL3 (or GPL3 although this may be late) to ensure that the needs of the Gtk community are fulfilled. Walking in late as a "what does this mean to me? oh oh..." is somewhat irresponsible. :-) Sorry.


Mark Mielke <mark mielke cc>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]