On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:13:56 +0100 John Emmas <john...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > An interesting point. Technically, the "Library" GPL and the > "Lesser" GPL aren't the same document - even though they might have > the same wording. Just as a loan agreement signed by me isn't the > same legal instrument as one signed by my neighbour - even though > they might come from the same lender and have identical wording. The > original Lesser GPL has been superseded and programmers using Lesser > GPL code are often free to choose version 2 or later, at their > discretion. However, gtkmm isn't released under the Lesser GPL. > It's released under the "Library" GPL which I suspect isn't the same > legal instrument as the one that that got superseded. > > As with most legal documents, the only people they tend to benefit > are the lawyers..!
Your views are highly idiosyncractic (to choose a more neutral expression than FUD). On looking at the source files, I see that it is in fact GTK+ which is released under the LGPL-2 or later, at the choice of the user. gtkmm is released under the the LGPL-2.1 or later at the choice of the user. The LGPL-2.1 itself says "This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL. It also counts as the successor of the GNU Library Public License, version 2, hence the version number 2.1". Where a licence includes the words "or (at your option) any later version", the licensee in effect allows a user to adopt any license which the FSF say is a later version of the original license. Some developers (the linux kernel developers in particular) do not like this, and do not include the "or (at your option) any later version". However, GTK+ and gtkmm do include those words. In any event, your "later versions" point is immaterial to your view that the LGPL-2 and 2.1 do not allow derived works which only link dynamically to the library, because both use exactly the same words. It is also completely contrary to the purpose of the LPGL, which is clearly intended to allow dynamic linking without applying restrictions of use to the object code. Your views seem to be intended to discourage the original poster from adopting GTK+/gtkmm. You no doubt have your own reasons for discouraging commercial use of GTK+, but as I say that is clearly contrary to the intention of the licence and of the GTK+ project. Chris _______________________________________________ gtk-app-devel-list mailing list gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
