From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27933 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2003 10:56:32 -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 27726 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2003 10:56:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mtagate4.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.153) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Oct 2003 10:56:18 -0000 Received: from d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.180] (may be forged)) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9VAtRgZ039740; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:55:27 GMT Received: from d12ml007.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id h9VAtQQf244706; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:55:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <3FA20890.5050005@callisto.canberra.edu.au> Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Sensitivity: To: rpj@callisto.canberra.edu.au Cc: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: changing pthreads-win32 license Message-ID: From: "Alexander Terekhov" Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:56:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2 Ross Johnson wrote: [...] > - OK, it relies on some common definition of 'derivative work'. Well. http://www.pbwt.com/Attorney/files/ravicher_1.pdf http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.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? AFAIK, a mere use (#include, linking, whatnot) of unmodified {library} code does *NOT* constitute creation of "derivative work". You'll simply have a "compilation". http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html (see VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations) http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-cplfaq.html (see Q15 and Q19) Does this answer the question? regards, alexander. Please respond to rpj@callisto.canberra.edu.au Sent by: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com To: cc: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: changing pthreads-win32 license 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