Re: Libpropc++

[Ole Laursen <olau hardworking dk>]

Roel Vanhout <roel riks nl> writes:

> ============= Quote
> Licensing and ordering
> Libpropc++ has dual licensing:
> LGPL 2.1
>     You are allowed to use libpropc++ only for open source software 
> (because of LGPL issues related with templates).
> Commercial License
>     Can be used to develop commercial applications.
> Order/download libpropc++ at http://ex-code.com/propcpp/.
> ============= End Quote

Evidently, the author missed the difference between commercial and
proprietary.

> Since template code cannot be 'separated' from the rest of a program 
> into a shared library, all the files that depend on a template library 
> (such as, in fact, libsigc++) will have to be open-sourced in order to 
> comply with the terms of the LGPL. This does indeed implicate that you'd 
> have to open-source at least a part of your program in order to be able 
> to use libsigc++.

But this is your interpretation. Clearly, the authors of gtkmm and
libsigc++ didn't intend this interpretation. Especially for libsigc++
it simply does not make any sense to license it under LGPL if the
template parts weren't covered by the same pattern of use - i.e. as
long as you are just using the library, there are no restrictions on
your license as long as people can get to the source of the library
itself (and do the relinking stuff).

Also, I think 6a) in the LGPL

  http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

covers this with the paranthesis:
  
  (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of
  definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to
  recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://www.cs.aau.dk/~olau/