Re: License question

["R. Douglas Barbieri" <dooglio gmail com>]

On 12/13/05, Chris Vine <member cvine freeserve co uk> wrote:
> The LGPL has a specific exemption in section 5 for macros and "small inline functions" (I think a maximum length of 10 lines is specified to count as a "small inline function").  It does not include templates (whether of more or less than 10 lines) as it was not designed with C++ in mind.
>
> I will look it up this evening and give you the precise text, and what I have done in the past as a modification of the licence (I have used a modified LGPL rather than a modified GPL, and if you wanted to I would have no problem with you adopting the same wording).

If you cannot "link" against templates, then it seems to me pointless
to put a library like libsigc++ under the LGPL--might as well GPL-it,
since the library is totally template-based.

> Chris
>
>
> ========================================
> Message Received: Dec 13 2005, 10:25 AM
> From: "Murray Cumming"
> To: "Chris Vine"
> Cc: gtkmm-list gnome org, doug dooglio net
> Subject: *** SPAM *** Re: License question
>
> On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 22:20 +0000, Chris Vine wrote:
> > 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".
>
> Still, I'd prefer to hear directly from an FSF person about this because
> it does seem vague. I'd like to know
> a) Is LGPL meaningless for C++ libraries that provide templated types
> (most C++ libraries)?
> b) Is LGPL meaningless for C libraries that have macros in their
> headers?
> c) Is a certain amount of a) or b) OK?
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Murray Cumming
> murrayc murrayc com
> www.murrayc.com
> www.openismus.com
>
>


--
R. Douglas Barbieri
doug dooglio net