At 10:35 PM -0400 10/14/12, Bob Hanson wrote: >I don't think so. Why do you say that? All they have to do is provide changes >to YOUR subsystem. What you describe is GPL.
No, I described LGPL. >If they change the jmol code they must share those changes that they made to >that code only not to their code. Am I wrong? I think that is exactly what I said. To make this more concrete in situations described below I suppose that a commercial publisher is integrating Jmol into their closed-source project. For example: At 11:22 PM -0400 10/14/12, Stephen Bannasch wrote: >Someone who integrates LGPL into closed-source work must develop systems for >extending LGPL licenseand making the source code for LGPL work available to >anybody to whom closed-source distribution is made in source or executable >form. I claim that a commercial publisher must provide access to Jmol code -- not to their code. Here is where I describe the situation where commercial publisher adds to Jmol code which is then integrated into their product: At 12:58 PM -0400 10/14/12, Stephen Bannasch wrote: >If the closed-source work extends LGPL code that is integrated into their >product they must extend LGPL license to their additions to anybody they >distribute either the closed-source project or a binary executable which >contains project. They are now responsible for providing Jmol code AND their additions to Jmol code -- and agin they do not have to provide access to rest of their code. The third variation I described is when publisher adds a new feature to Jmol code that (at that point in time) only works in conjunction with a feature in publishers closed-source code. At 12:58 PM -0400 10/14/12, Stephen Bannasch wrote: >If closed source project extends LGPL work and these new features in LGPL >library involve new ways of communicating with orinteracting with >closed-source part of work then new features in LGPL work must work and be >understandable and extendable to another user without access to closed-source >work. In this case publisher will need to create and release additional code to make the new feature understandable and functional. This can be done by releasing part of their closed-source code OR by recreating separate code to make new Jmol feature compilable and usable without releasing their closed-source code. These kind of subtle details are why the LGPL is hard to understand and why most commercial publishers will not use LGPL-licensed code. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Jmol-developers mailing list Jmol-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
