Re: License question

[Chris Vine <chris cvine freeserve co uk>]

On Monday 12 December 2005 08:49, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > The point is
> > that if
> > glibmm (not his code) contains templates released under an unmodified
> > LGPL,
> > he would as he says be required to release any source code which
> > instantiates
> > any of the templates or links (other than dynamically) with code which
> > contains such instantiations.  This would apply to anything using
> > libsigc++
> > (which means that although GTK+ can be used in closed source code, gtkmm
> > cannot),
>
> [snip]
>
> This is highly debatable - otherwise nobody would be asking. The intention
> is clear. If someone worries enough about this then they should ask the
> FSF, who wrote the LGPL. In extreme circumstances, if it was really
> necessary, we could relicense libsigc++ under the MIT/BSD license, or
> license it as GPL+exception, as GNU's libstdc++ is licensed:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html
>
> Again, the only opinion I'd pay much attention to on this is the FSFs
> because they have lawyers.

The FSF, who say they are the primary sponsor of GNU, recognise there is a 
problem as libstdc++ is released under a modified GPL to deal specifically 
with the template problem, as you yourself note.  The problem with the LGPL 
is explicitly set out in the web page to which you refer, so they at any rate 
do not regard it as "highly debatable".

No proprietary developer in his/her right mind would use a LGPL library 
requiring the instantiation of templates.  Modifying the licence would 
therefore be a good idea, but would require the consent of the authors of the 
relevant code.

Whilst the views of the FSF seem reasonably clear (there is a problem), their 
views as to the meaning of the licence they have authored would not be 
probative in English law (about which I do know) in any event, even if they 
were copyright holders of the code in question, which they are not.  The 
licence would be interpreted by reference to the words it uses.  The GPL 
licence does not state which system of law is to apply to it, so the legal 
system applying in the case of any particular proceedings affecting any 
particular code depends on the rules of private international law for the 
court in which the proceedings are brought, and it is not beyond the bounds 
of possibility that some of them might have regard to the views of the FSF.  
At the end of the day it comes down to which jurisdictions recognise 
another's judgements against their own citizens.  That is a matter of 
international treaty.

Chris