Re: gtkmm capabilities
- From: Roel Vanhout <roel riks nl>
- To: Russell Shaw <rjshaw netspace net au>
- Cc: gtkmm-list <gtkmm-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gtkmm capabilities
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:50:21 +0100
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]