Re: Libpropc++

[Chris Vine <chris cvine freeserve co uk>]

On Friday 19 August 2005 14:09, Foster Gareth wrote:

> I'm only following the thread of discussion here, I don't claim to know
> whether this is an LGPL issue that directly affects gtkmm folks, and I am
> sure the people behind this project are knowledgeable enough to choose the
> right license for the job.
>
> I am more interested in the development of the C++ programming language,
> the discusion of the export keyword for example. Obviously that is of
> interest to all of us, in the sense that we are all C++ users, and in the
> sense that, as you said, _some people_ interpret the lgpl/comercial
> software combination as being problematic.

I am glad you are sure they intended what you say, and I agree with your 
assessment, but if so I am sure (to the extent that the LGPL can be construed 
at all) that they have not achieved it.  The licence is construed on the 
terms on which it is given.  It requires any person creating an executable 
using templated classes or functions released under the LGLP to make the 
object code (the executable) freely available.  That is why libstdc++ doesn't 
use it (and why libprocpc++ does, as like the Qt library developers the 
author wants an income and there is nothing wrong with that,  Incidentally 
you may want to look at some of the links on his site, they are, shall I say, 
unusual).

With libsigc++ this isn't too problematic, as there are only one or two 
authors and they can relicense it.  With glibmm I really cannot recall if any 
templates are used (outside libsigc++) other than Glib::RefPtr, but if not 
the code for that is so trivial that it could be rewritten in about 20 
minutes.  Therefore, so far as gtkmm is concerned relicensing libsigc++ would 
avoid the problem.

A proprietary user would also calculate whether anyone holding copyrights to 
libsigc++ (Martin Schulze?) is actually going to make an issue of it.  That 
is quite unlikely but on a major commercial project their IP lawyer would no 
doubt have something to say about it.

Actually, anyone using GTK+ should do an audit to see if it employs any macros 
or inline functions exceeding 10 lines in length.  I wonder if anyone 
actually does this?

Chris