Greetings Larry and All,
On Jun 16, 2004, at 23:56, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Glen Low wrote:[Humor aside, if the code I'm linking with MySQL is on their approved
FLOSS list, what functionally is the difference between MySQL being LGPL
and it being GPL + FLOSS Exception?]
Probably no difference at all.
This entire matter has been blown way out of proportion because of the
insistence of some that the reciprocity conditions of the GPL or LGPL reach
to something more than derivative works. But if you read the actual terms of
both licenses carefully in light of the copyright law definitions of
*collective works* and *derivative works*, then mere linking to any Program
-- treating the Program as a black box with hooks for connectivity -- does
not lead to reciprocity under either license. The LGPL and the GPL have the
same effect -- that is, NO EFFECT -- on the licenses of independent and
separate other works that merely link.
Please note, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. However, as a registered user of /., I am obviously happy to dispense ill-formed and crass opinions at the drop of a byte. Disclaimers aside:
The idea of being able to draw a clear line between derivative and collective works based on "treating the Program as a black box with hooks for connectivity" makes me very uncomfortable. It is generally a relatively trivial task to create a GPL-licensed wrapper that allows GPL-licensed code to be used as a black box component. In effect, architecture can trump the copyright holders rights, even when is clearly not what they desire.
I must work on my LinuxTag presentations now, but will try to keep up with this thread (if it continues) from Germany.
Thanks again for the time all!
Cheers! --zak
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
