On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:47:19AM +0200, Kees Jongenburger wrote:
> > So where does this requirement to change our license come from ?
> >
> > As far as I see we only need to comply to section 6, which requires
> >
> > us as said above to allow new verions and reverse engineering of
> >
> > our code to make it work (which is easy as we provide source).
> We do ,but what about a pary creating a comecrial / closed source
> version of mmbase?
They would only have to supply the code for the LGPL library if they distribute
it with their application. The rest of the application could be closed
completely, but the LGPL part can't be.
Isn't reverse engineering allowed anyway?
The "reverse engineering" clause is optional;
From the LGPL:
Also, you must do one of these things:
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked
with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that
uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the
user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that
the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
to use the modified definitions.)
b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with
the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run
time a copy of the library already present on the user's
computer system, rather than copying library functions into
the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified
version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as
the modified version is interface-compatible with the version
that the work was made with.
c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at
least three years, to give the same user the materials
specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more
than the cost of performing this distribution.
d) If distribution of the work is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, offer
equivalent access to copy the above specified
materials from the same place.
e) Verify that the user has already received a
copy of these materials or that you have already
sent this user a copy.
I would say that section 6b applies here.
On the other hand, I can see that this would complicate the licensing,
and could cause confusion.
Just my 2 cents. I'm not a committer, and I have no opinion on whether
or not LGPL code should be allowed in the core.
Joost.
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
