On 12/13/05, Chris Vine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The LGPL has a specific exemption in section 5 for macros and "small inline > functions" (I think a maximum length of 10 lines is specified to count as a > "small inline function"). It does not include templates (whether of more or > less than 10 lines) as it was not designed with C++ in mind. > > I will look it up this evening and give you the precise text, and what I have > done in the past as a modification of the licence (I have used a modified > LGPL rather than a modified GPL, and if you wanted to I would have no problem > with you adopting the same wording).
If you cannot "link" against templates, then it seems to me pointless to put a library like libsigc++ under the LGPL--might as well GPL-it, since the library is totally template-based. > Chris > > > ======================================== > Message Received: Dec 13 2005, 10:25 AM > From: "Murray Cumming" > To: "Chris Vine" > Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: *** SPAM *** Re: License question > > On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 22:20 +0000, Chris Vine wrote: > > On Monday 12 December 2005 08:49, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > The point is > > > > that if > > > > glibmm (not his code) contains templates released under an unmodified > > > > LGPL, > > > > he would as he says be required to release any source code which > > > > instantiates > > > > any of the templates or links (other than dynamically) with code which > > > > contains such instantiations. This would apply to anything using > > > > libsigc++ > > > > (which means that although GTK+ can be used in closed source code, gtkmm > > > > cannot), > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > This is highly debatable - otherwise nobody would be asking. The intention > > > is clear. If someone worries enough about this then they should ask the > > > FSF, who wrote the LGPL. In extreme circumstances, if it was really > > > necessary, we could relicense libsigc++ under the MIT/BSD license, or > > > license it as GPL+exception, as GNU's libstdc++ is licensed: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html > > > > > > Again, the only opinion I'd pay much attention to on this is the FSFs > > > because they have lawyers. > > > > The FSF, who say they are the primary sponsor of GNU, recognise there is a > > problem as libstdc++ is released under a modified GPL to deal specifically > > with the template problem, as you yourself note. The problem with the LGPL > > is explicitly set out in the web page to which you refer, so they at any > > rate > > do not regard it as "highly debatable". > > Still, I'd prefer to hear directly from an FSF person about this because > it does seem vague. I'd like to know > a) Is LGPL meaningless for C++ libraries that provide templated types > (most C++ libraries)? > b) Is LGPL meaningless for C libraries that have macros in their > headers? > c) Is a certain amount of a) or b) OK? > > [snip] > > -- > Murray Cumming > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.murrayc.com > www.openismus.com > > -- R. Douglas Barbieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
