From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29784 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2003 15:01:12 -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 29735 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 15:01:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com) (194.196.100.236) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Oct 2003 15:01:10 -0000 Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196]) by d12lmsgate.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9KF18XZ049454 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:01:08 +0200 Received: from d12ml007.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id h9KF18TO257896 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:01:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20031020124511.BA246D8@murray.nsw.cmis.CSIRO.AU> Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Sensitivity: To: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: License wars Message-ID: From: "Alexander Terekhov" Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:01:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2 Hugues Talbot wrote: [...] > The CPL does not spell what a derivative work is. Because that's defined in the copyright statute and, to some extent, in the case law. > Is it anyone's guess ? do you have to be a copyright laywer > to have some opinion on this? It surely won't hurt. ;-) http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html http://www.pbwt.com/Attorney/files/ravicher_1.pdf http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL18.pdf > You may not agree with the LGPL definition of a derivative > work but at least it's there. Really? A "work based on the Library" means either the Library or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Library or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into another language. Translation: "we're going to impose restrictions on BOTH derivative AND COLLECTIVE works (if you distribute them) and now see the copyright statute and check also the case law if you don't understand the legal meaning of 'derivative works' and 'collective works' in software". What do you NOT understand here? My problem is NOT related to the "share-alike" provisions for derivative works. The CPL does have it too. My problem with [L]GPL is that [L]GPL imposes restrictions on the "entire" COLLECTIVE works... including non-derivative "constituents". Do you get it now? regards, alexander. P.S. I'm NOT speaking for IBM here. "My own opinions; and in no way reflect official opinion or policy of IBM Corp". Okay? Sent by: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com To: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com cc: Subject: License wars Dear Alexander, The LGPL's intention is to let people use Free software into proprietary code as long as they go through some slightly annoying hoops, while ensuring that the Free software itself remains Free. I think this is what we want (in broad terms). Now I've scanned through the CPL and it does not seem to protect the Free software in any way that is clearly spelled. The LGPL says that if you modify the original Free software then your modification must also be Free. The CPL does not spell what a derivative work is. Is it anyone's guess ? do you have to be a copyright laywer to have some opinion on this? You may not agree with the LGPL definition of a derivative work but at least it's there. I don't want to go into any kind of religious war on licenses, but the (L)GPL has been enforced several times by the FSF, so far no one has dared or found it worthwhile to go to court, maybe it is `idiotic' in your own words but it seems to be somewhat effective. The FSF has stated several times that they would help anyone wishing to enforce the (L)GPL on their own software. Can we expect the same service from IBM, should someone infringe on the CPL? The point of a Free Software license is to grand some rights and have some protection. The CPL does the first part all right, I'm not sure about the second, sorry. -------- Hugues Talbot, CSIRO Mathematical & Information Sciences Locked Bag 17, Building E6B, Macquarie University North Ryde NSW 2113 Australia Ph: 61 2 9325 3208 Fax: 61 2 9325 3200 Verbing weirds language -- Calvin