From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26501 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2003 07:00:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact pthreads-win32-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26424 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2003 07:00:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO real.ise.canberra.edu.au) (137.92.140.34) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Oct 2003 07:00:10 -0000 Received: from callisto.canberra.edu.au (special.ise.canberra.edu.au [137.92.140.39]) by real.ise.canberra.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9V707p31497 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:00:08 +1100 Message-ID: <3FA20890.5050005@callisto.canberra.edu.au> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:00:00 -0000 From: Ross Johnson Reply-To: rpj@callisto.canberra.edu.au User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: changing pthreads-win32 license References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 Alexander Terekhov wrote: >>It specifically exempts macro definitions and the like. Read it. >> >> > >You mean "ten lines or less in length"? Yeah, given that the >length of lines seem to be unrestricted. [L]GPL is totally >brian-damaged technically and legally. Really. > > > Personally, I'd be inclined to regard any work that included only the unmodified LGPL'ed header files, specifically supplied for that purpose, and dynamically linked to the unmodified main body of the library, to be an independent and separate work as far as the LGPL goes - static linking and assorted tricks aside for the moment. If the LGPL really doesn't permit that, then I'd be in favour of changing to an appropriate alternative license. But for the moment I'm trying to convince myself that the CPL (Alexander's preferred license) would serve the purpose any better if it was adopted. I still don't see how the CPL differs fundumentally from the LGPL with it's so-called 'virus' effect. Here's the URL for the CPL again: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php - OK, it relies on some common definition of 'derivative work'. - section 1/b/ii appears to regard any distributed derivative work as a 'Contribution' to the 'Program' I.e. is covered by the CPL. I note that this does not confine the term only to code contributed to the primary project maintainer/s for includion. - NOW, section 3/b/iv then effectively says that re-distribution of the CPL'ed 'Program' (which is now the combined derivative work) is only allowed if, amongst other things, the source code for the [combined] work is made accessible. Using the aformentioned (in a previous message) libstdc++ library as the example, http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html if the library was CPL'ed, how would the CPL free the author of a program that uses this library from having to disclose the full program source code? Ross