Re: gtkmm capabilities



Russell Shaw wrote:
It would seem so, but you could make a licence that restricts reverse
engineering to bug fixing, which is a bit vague.

The LGPL could indeed have been written this way, but it's not. And if you mean 'you could write your own license for you own program that restricts reverse engineering to bug fixing', then that would be irrelevant: the LGPL prohibits that so you could not use an LGPL library in a product that is released under such a license.

* a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (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.)

It says the closed part can be supplied as an object, and only the library
needs to have source available.

Yes, but that's just one of the conditions. The first sentence of Section 6 *also* requires you to put the *whole program* under a license that allows reverse engineering for the purposes of retrofitting a different/modified version of the (LGPL) library that is used. And that is what many commercial vendors do not want. See, this is what I meant when I said that licenses are complex and usually *very* interwoven :)

cheers,

roel




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