Re: [libxml++] 2.8.0 needed

[Christophe de VIENNE <cdevienne alphacent com>]

Murray Cumming wrote:

> > Murray Cumming wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > > BTW, I already updated the website with the new versions, the licence
> > > > clarification (although I did remove the static linking part because I
> > > > have doubts about it, I'll try to get more information).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > What do you doubt?
> > >
> > >      
> > Here is what I read in the LGPL text
> >    
>
> Only lawyers actually (pretend to) understand licenses, so I'll only talk
> about my understanding of the general consensus.
>
>  
>
> > (version 2.1 shipped in libxml++
> > package) about static/dynamic linking. There is only two places the word
> > shared or statically is used :
> >
> > In the preamble :
> >
> >     73   When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or
> > using
> >     74 a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
> >     75 combined work, a derivative of the original library.  The ordinary
> >     76 General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
> >     77 entire combination fits its criteria of freedom.  The Lesser
> > General
> >     78 Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code
> > with
> >     79 the library.
> >
> > From this I understand that there is no big difference between linking
> > statically of dynamically.
> >    
>
> No, I don't think that section says any such thing. It just says that the
> LGPL allows something that the GPL does not. It does not yet say what it
> allows.
>
>  
>
> > Then in Section 6:
> >
> >    278   You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that
> > the
> >    279 Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are
> > covered by
> >    280 this License.  You must supply a copy of this License.  If the
> > work
> >    281 during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the
> >    282 copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a
> > reference
> >    283 directing the user to the copy of this License.  Also, you must
> > do *one*
> >    284 of these things:
> >    285
> >    286     a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
> >    287     machine-readable source code for the Library including
> > whatever
> >    288     changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
> > [...]
> >    297
> >    298     b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with
> > the
> >    299     Library.  A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run
> > time a
> >    300     copy of the library already present on the user's computer
> > system,
> >    301     rather than copying library functions into the executable,
> > and (2)
> >    302     will operate properly with a modified version of the library,
> > if
> >    303     the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
> >    304     interface-compatible with the version that the work was made
> > with.
> >    305
> > [then points c, d and e]
> >
> >
> > What I understand from this is that the use of a shared linking is one
> > of the options proprietary projects have, but it's not an obligation if
> > one of the other conditions is respected (ie a, c, d or e).
> >    
> Yes, and all those other options involve providing the source code to
> people who have received the object code.
>  
Which can be done by a proprietary software.

> > None of the words 'shared', 'static' ant 'dynamic' can be found anywhere
> > else in the License.
> >    
> I don't think they need to be mentioned. It clearly says that one of your
> options is to use a shared library. A shared library is a
> dynamically-linked library. Statically linked libraries are not shared
> libraries.
>  

So we seem to agree that using a shared library is not an obligation, 
but one of the way to respect the License. This make the assertion "they 
can not Link statically (instead of dynamically) to libxml++." 
incomplete, if not false. That's why I did not put it in the 
clarification on the website, since it would be more confusing than 
clarifying.

I think leaving the website as it is right now is ok. Tell me if you don't.


Christophe

--
Christophe de Vienne
Alpha Centauri
tel: 01 47 82 93 78