Re: gtkmm capabilities

[Ole Laursen <olau hardworking dk>]

Roel Vanhout <roel riks nl> writes:

>> I've never really been into proprietary code, but why is that? As long
>> as you cannot copy the work, you can only benefit by stealing ideas,
>> but most programs aren't rocket science anyway. The LGPL seems to be
>> enforcing fair use, simply.
>
> Well yes, it does. However, have a look at the licenses of a couple of
> "big" and "well-known" software packages. Most have clauses that
> forbid reverse engineering. I don't know exactly why (although I can
> think of a few reasons, like wanting to keep file formats proprietary,
> or a certain algorithm) but that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter _why_
> these people want to forbid reverse engineering, point is that they
> _can not forbid it if they use an LGPL library_. Which can be used as
> an argument _no to use_ LGPL libraries.

Yeah, but you are sort of assuming that the guy asking here would only
want to use a license that forbids reverse engineering.

> Again, I'm not arguing pro-proprietary software. I prefer Free
> Software, and I will advice compenies I work for to choose it over
> proprietary software (when applicable). But that's not how managers
> and, more importantly, lawyers see it. They see big red 'LIABILITY'
> warning signs. And in a way, they are right, at least IMO.

I don't get it. Why liability? What does fair use have to do with
liability?

>> Besides, what matters is what the copyright holders think, right?
>> I.e. Murray and co.
>
> Heh no, that's not what matters :) What matters is what the license
> says. That's the legally binding thing. I mean, how can I know what
> the copyright-holders think? That's the whole reason things like
> this (licenses, contracts, wills, ...) are written down. It could be
> legally relevant if the developers would create a strong impression
> that the disputed use of the software is allowed, but a user would
> have to prove that - it's legally murky water and up to a judge. (I
> have to make a note here that I'm reasoning from civil law theory
> here, it may be a bit different in common law systems (ie, the US)
> but common law systems generally rely even more on 'concrete'
> evidence than civil law systems so I think I can justify my
> assumption).

But it is always up to a judge, isn't it? If Murray and co. publicly
state that they believe it to be OK or even write it down with the
license, then they can hardly claim afterwards that anyone infringed
their rights.

> Besides that, who are the copyright holders? Murray would be the first
> person that comes to mind, but what about the code that was left over
> from the early days that was written by other people?

That's of course a problem.

> Plus, saying that the GPL hadn't been court-tested until last year
> isn't FUD; it's only FUD if you imply that it wouldn't stand up.

Yep, and that's what you did. :-)

-- 
Ole Laursen
http://www.cs.aau.dk/~olau/