Re: ORBit2 and linc - licensing?

[Matthew Copeland <matthewc designlab ukans edu>]

On Fri, 25 May 2001, Sander Vesik wrote:

> 
> There seems to be an assumption being made here - that linc is licenced
> under LGPL. In fact, linc contains no licencing information at all, and
> whetever and how it was linkable to orbit naturaly depends on what licecne
> it is available under and how it was built (with/without LGPL).
> 
> You also haven't considered the fact that OpenSSL is tortally OK any any
> platforms where it is part of the platform, and yes such do exist. The
> ability of the library linc to be built with openssl support does not
> affect it's ability to be used by Orbit. 
> 
> Please refrain from trying to start a "FSF vs. the rest of the world" type
> flamewar.


Interesting that you assume I am trying to start a flame war by inviting
people to ask the FSF.  Would not the FSF have the best understanding of
compatability of the LPGL with other licenses?  It sounds very much to me
like you have some personnal gripe with the FSF.  That is fine.  I have no
problem with that at all, but don't read into what other people are saying
assuming that they are trying to promote a "FSF vs. the rest of the world"
mentality.    

	Even if some people don't like the FSF, its practices, or the
licenses it has created, the FSF can still be utilized as a resource for
answering questions in regard to the compatability issues that arise when
developers are making use of free software licenses and have questions
regarding the use of those licenses.  That is why I said, if you really
want to know the answer, check with the FSF licensing people.

On another note, I was not assuming anything about linc, I was assuming
that ORBit was under the LGPL.  Thus, certain restrictions apply if you
wish to keep it under the LGPL.  Realize, that to add a line in your
license providing exemptions for linking with non-compatible licenses, you
need the approval of every person who has ever contributed code to ORBit.
Now that I have clarified which product I am referring to the use of the
LGPL with perhaps you can actually provide commentary on the sections of
the LGPL to which I was referring.


Matthew M. Copeland


> 
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 matthew copeland honeywell com wrote:
> 
> > > > 
> > > > Oh well, the advertising clause does only say you have to mention
> > > > OpenSSL if you are advertising the features provided by OpenSSL. So
> > > > perhaps as long as the Entity doesn't use SSL, they are fine after all.
> > > 
> > > This may be true.  However, this does make it GPL-incompatible.  Thus,
> > > we won't be able to link to ORBit in GPL apps since ORBit will be linked
> > > to OpenSSL.
> > 
> > 	In turn, this could make it LGPL incompatible.  One example might
> > be, if you look at section 8 of the license,
> > 
> > "8. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
> > Library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
> > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
> > Library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
> > License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you
> > under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
> > parties remain in full compliance." -- LGPL
> > 
> > and now look at section 3,
> > 
> > "3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
> > License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do
> > this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that
> > they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead
> > of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU
> > General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version
> > instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices.
> > 
> > Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that
> > copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent
> > copies and derivative works made from that copy.
> > 
> > This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the
> > Library into a program that is not a library."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You will have effectively eliminated the possibility of using this clause,
> > which could be construed as a modification of the license.  I would highly
> > suggest before a decision is made on the usage of OpenSSL under its
> > modified BSD license, that someone consult the FSF people by e-mailing
> > licensing gnu org, and explaining to them the situation and asking what is
> > or is not acceptable under the Lesser GPL.
> > 
> > Matthew M. Copeland
> > matthewc designlab ukans edu
> > 
> 
> 	Sander
> 
> One day a tortoise will learn to fly
> 	-- Terry Pratchett, 'Small Gods'
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> orbit-list mailing list
> orbit-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-list
>