Re: gtkmm capabilities
- From: Roel Vanhout <roel riks nl>
- To: Ole Laursen <olau hardworking dk>
- Cc: gtkmm-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: gtkmm capabilities
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:36:18 +0100
Heh I thought everyone had given up on this discussion ;)
Ole Laursen wrote:
Yeah, but you are sort of assuming that the guy asking here would only
want to use a license that forbids reverse engineering.
Well I was assuming that he wanted to use a 'standard' commercial
licence, ie one that does forbid it. I can't speak for the OP of course,
it's just that I think that most people wouldn't even think about
putting in a clause about reverse engineering in their licenses.
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?
The liability in case is that using an LGPL library in a commercial
product without knowing exactly what the legal consequences of that are
opens a software publisher up to claims of copyright infringement. I'm
not even insinuating that any of the current copyright holders to the
gtkmm code would do that (as long as those publishers would follow what
those developers consider 'fair use' of the code) but that is only based
on _trust_ of said developers. While of course in business land, the
first rule is "trust no one" ;) Especially not in cases like this that
could cost (a lot of) money.
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.
That is true, and that is what these other projects that I referenced in
my last mail have done, but as far as I know there is no such license
amendment for gtkmm. I have not looked for any statements made by any of
the copyright holders to gtkmm code, so they may have publicly stated
that static linking is ok. Such (public) statements could be used to
argue the 'liberal' interpretation of the LGPL in this case. But still,
_all_ copyright holders would have had to have made such statements, and
the license amendment would have to have been in the license from before
any outside copyright holders had their code added to the library, OR
all the copyright holders would have to agree with the license change
(preferbly in writing).
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. :-)
No, I said the _L_PGL hasn't been court-tested, and I meant in relation
to the specific issue of statically linking with proprietary apps; and
in this specific case, I do indeed have doubts on the wording of the
LGPL. It is not clear enough to be able to say up front what a judge
will decide in this case. So if I were a lawyer advising a client on
this issue, I would advise against it, just to be on the safe side.
This would be a nice question for the "Software Freedom Law Center"
(http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/01/168252).
cheers,
roel
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]