Re: Gtkmm, LGPL and C++

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 12:13 +0000, Neil wrote:
> Thanks, Chris.
> 
> Chris Vine wrote:
> > Having read the LGPL, I personally would not 
> > release important proprietary code based on a templated library licenced 
> > under it, such as libsigc++ (which is where the problem, if there is one, 
> > mainly resides with gtkmm), but I imagine that there are those who take a 
> > different view, such as Jonathon.
> 
> There are certainly mixed messages.
[snip]

No, we are very explicit on the website:
http://www.gtkmm.org/license.shtml
and we are very clear about it when asked on mailing lists. We are the
copyright holders. Legally, it's our opinion that counts. If we changed
our minds later, and decided to sue you, we wouldn't have a legal leg to
stand on.

This is about only the arbitrary, vague, and probably unenforcable "10
lines or less" mention in the LGPL in this paragraph, which we failed to
notice years ago:

"
If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure
layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten
lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is
unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work.
(Executables containing this object code plus portions of the Library
will still fall under Section 6.)
"

There's no other issue of which I am aware. 

This is at first an issue for libsigc++. This is the last thread about
this:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/libsigc-list/2006-July/msg00033.html

I still do intend to actually add such an exception to our LGPL license.
I just haven't got around to it yet. I plan to do it soon. I don't
consider it urgent because I think we are very clear.


-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com