SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [chat] LGPL license w/o GPL infection
- To: slug-chat@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [chat] LGPL license w/o GPL infection
- From: invisible ink <jdub@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun Oct 14 19:58:01 2001
- Reply-by: Wed Oct 17 19:53:25 EST 2001
- User-agent: Mutt/1.3.22i
begin Andre Pang quotation:
> i'm looking for a license similar to the LGPL, but with no
> 'infection' if you statically link the source code into another
Terrible word! Infection does not imply an active choice - when choosing to
use the GPL or LGPL you have full disclosure and should have full
understanding of the requirements.
'Viral' licenses are those that enforce restrictions without full disclosure
or understanding - without your choice in the matter - such as shrink-wrap
And now to our regularly scheduled answers. :)
> what i'm after is this:
> 1. If you modify the source code, you must make your
> modifications freely available under the same license.
> 2. If your project uses this code, you do _not_ have to make
> your project available under the same license.
> 3. Statically linking against this library (or program,
> whatever) is fine. You do not have to make your program
> available under the terms of this license if you do this.
> However, see (1) if you make modifications to source code
> in this program.
> I believe the LGPL fulfils points 1 and 2, but not 3.
Check section 6 of the LGPL; specifically "you must do ONE of these things".
Only one of which is using a shared library mechanism. The others involve
disclosure of source (as you've mentioned, see point 1 in your list) and
> Is there anybody who's done this research before and can point me to a
> software license which fulfils all three conditions? I really don't want
> to sift through all the legal jargon reading the actual licenses
I can get further information from the Sun guys involved in GNOME about
this, as their legal team covered this ground over and over before joining
the GNOME Project. Unfortunately it's "Sun"day. ;)
Penguinillas Pack GNUzis