On 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote: > > Ian Hickson wrote: > >> must allow _their_ end users to reverse engineer their program, > > Does "their program" include linked libraries?
Section 5 of the LGPL: # However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library # creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it # contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the # library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 # states terms for distribution of such executables. Section 6 of the LGPL: # [...] you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with # the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and # distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms # permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse # engineering for debugging such modifications. So, as far as I can tell, the answer is that anything that links with the LGPL code (which includes the parts of the VC++ redistributables that are compiled into the executable) must be covered by terms that allow reverse engineering. As for what says that you can't reverse engineer the MSVC++ code, see: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1192723687d&hl=en&selm=Pine.LNX.4.21.0109130113550.15650-100000%40dhalsim.dreamhost.com ...but of course that may be different in different countries. > Who says that? In Europe, reverse engineering is allowed for ensuring > compatibility. But is it allowed for reasons of curiosity alone? >> The idea of free software is that ALL users should be >> able to run the source, study the source, adapt the source, and >> redistribute the source. > > "Adapt the source" (and use it) would not be not possible here. Assuming you are referring to the LGPL, then yes, exactly. >> The LGPL should only be used when it can do this >> better than the GPL -- namely, when the service that the library >> provides is already commonly provided. The services that Mozilla >> provides do not fall into that category, > > It does. MSIE is wide-spread and often incorporated in other apps. There > are a lot of companies which had the choice between MSIE and Mozilla, > and some of them chose Mozilla (and I think that Nokia chose Linux in > part because of the availability of Mozilla, while a Mozilla that > disallows the use of Macromedia Flash and RealPlayer might have been out > of question). Since those apps are not free either, and since Flash and RealPlayer are not free, I don't think they should use Mozilla. Gecko does a lot more than Trident (WinIE's engine) or Tasman (MacIE's engine) -- XML rendering, better standards compliance, XUL, XBL, etc. If the only reason people are turning to Mozilla rather than MSIE is the price of licensing IE, then maybe we should take that as a hint that we have a lot of work to do. And if it isn't, then anything we can do to promote strong copyleft should be done. If people are happy to use a GPL kernel, GPL compiler, GPL tools, and so on, just in order to be able to use Mozilla, then the chances are good that they would not reconsider the whole thing just because Mozilla was GPL. Incidentally, the Flash issue seems to me to be a red herring. If, as an end user, I obtain a copy of a GPLed version of Mozilla, and a copy of the proprietary Flash plugin, then the GPL does not stop me from doing whatever I want with the GPLed code, *so long as I don't redistribute it* without following the license. The only case that would be a problem is distributing the proprietary plugin with the GPLed Mozilla with the intent of using the whole as a Flash renderer. In practice, I see no one doing that. >> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html > > I wholly disagree with parts of that doc. It speaks about forcing people > to use make software "free" (GPL), and "force" is not "free" in my book. To take this to an extreme: for me to be free, I have to be assured that no one will harm me. If someone tries to harm me, they must be forced to fail (by catching them and placing them in prison, typically). Does that mean that I am not free? FWIW, the english version of that page does not contain the string "forc" -- could you point out the exact sections you disagree with? > But, it also says "We free software developers should support one > another.". (I make no distinction between free software and open source > here.) You may not -- the author of that page, and me, for that matter, _do_ make such a distinction. The requirement that the source of applications be open is a side effect of requiring that the program be free for users to do whatever they like with it (insofar as doing so does not restrict the rights that others have to the code). > That's exactly my point - allowing other projects to use our code. That may be your point, but it is not my point, which is to ensure my freedom to do what I like with the code. > If we are starting fights with "free" vs. "open" and deny each other > code, we only harm ourselves, IMO. That depends on what your goal is. Yours, as I understand it, is to spread the source code as much as possible, for whatever reason. (I don't see why this is a good or bad thing.) Mine is to increase freedom. Whether the source is used by one person or many does not really matter. This is explained better than I could here: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WillYouMakeAnException : Maximizing the number of users is not our aim. Rather, we are trying to : give the crucial freedoms to as many users as possible. In general, : proprietary software projects hinder rather than help the cause of : freedom. >> And that is exactly WHY I am against using the LGPL. An LGPL project >> should NOT be using free software code. > > Are you saying that LGPL code is not "free"? It's not strong copyleft. It is free as much as the MPL is free -- end users are free to do what they like, but the license does not stop people from using non-free software in conjunction with the free code. > Is only the pure GPL in your view? The GPL is the only strong copyleft license that I am aware of. There may be others, but none of those we have discussed in this thread other than the GPL are strong copyleft (as far as I know). > That doesn't seem to be supported by > <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>. That page discusses mainly what is free vs what is not. It only touches on what is strong copyleft and what is not. This page covers that topic: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html >> If the project wants the code that >> much, it should switch to a strong copyleft free software license. > > It won't. There are examples of companies switching to the GPL in order to use other GPL code. It has happened, it can happen again. It *won't* happen if we don't require it. >> we should move Mozilla to the GPL -- so >> that this kind of problem does not arise. > > This is impossible. People who contributed code to Mozilla are objecting > that. People who contributed to Mozilla are objecting other changes too! :-) > I am not one of them, as long as my code is still usable/available > under terms which *I* consider free, for which the GPL does not qualify. What exactly is your definition of free? >>> The GPL is, IMO, not as free as other licenses. >>> >> You're right, it isn't. >> > (That's why I think that the term "Free Software" is wholly > inappropriate and misleading.) The term (as used by the FSF) is extremely well defined. The GPL is a license that ensures two things: a. Code covered by the GPL will be free. b. Code covered by the GPL won't be used with code that is not free. As an author of free software, I am against people taking my code and using it with code that they are not making free. The GPL protects me against that; other licenses typically do not. >> It was very carefully designed to make it >> impossible to use GPL-covered software in proprietary environments. >> >> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html > > I don't speak less about proprietary environments, but other open source > environments, like the MPL, LGPL etc etc.. But the only reason to use those environments instead of the GPL is to allow the use of proprietary code!! -- Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL /. `- ' ( `--' `- , ) - > ) \ irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
