On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 12:13 +0000, Neil wrote: > Thanks, Chris. > > Chris Vine wrote: > > Having read the LGPL, I personally would not > > release important proprietary code based on a templated library licenced > > under it, such as libsigc++ (which is where the problem, if there is one, > > mainly resides with gtkmm), but I imagine that there are those who take a > > different view, such as Jonathon. > > There are certainly mixed messages. [snip]
No, we are very explicit on the website: http://www.gtkmm.org/license.shtml and we are very clear about it when asked on mailing lists. We are the copyright holders. Legally, it's our opinion that counts. If we changed our minds later, and decided to sue you, we wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. This is about only the arbitrary, vague, and probably unenforcable "10 lines or less" mention in the LGPL in this paragraph, which we failed to notice years ago: " If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work. (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the Library will still fall under Section 6.) " There's no other issue of which I am aware. This is at first an issue for libsigc++. This is the last thread about this: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/libsigc-list/2006-July/msg00033.html I still do intend to actually add such an exception to our LGPL license. I just haven't got around to it yet. I plan to do it soon. I don't consider it urgent because I think we are very clear. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
