I think it would be really useful to have a flash version of the lgpl, as the implications towards licensing such code are vague to say the least.
the problem seems to revolve around the interpretation of section 5 and 6 of the license:
5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
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.
......
6. As an exception to the Sections above, 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.
the first paragraph of section 5 seems to suggest that merly linking a library to a 'work that uses the library' doesn't impose any licenses on the program, but the very next paragraph seems to contradict this. the exception in section 6 is unworkable for a flash project, so doesn't really provide an alternative way of using the library.
IMHO i would discount LGPL altogether, and go for one of the better written licenses such as apache or MPL, both of which allow the use of libraries in commercial (closed source) applications, but prohibit the extension of such libraries unless the extensions carry the same open source license, thus protecting the 'open sourceness' of the library.
Rob
On 4/4/06, Dan Shryock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David,
I agree with you completely. It is not a problem, just a frustration. The licensing of the library will in effect be determining how I build portions of an application (specifically making them more complex, even if not significantly so), which is my only gripe. Just seems silly that licensing would drive the build process and code (especially since I would have zero objections to releasing the port of the code). Oh well...
Dan
On 4/4/06, David Rorex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I don't see any problem here.
1. Compile the AS classes into their own swf, say "JSON.swf"
2. Your main app is "Main.swf", and does not have any JSON classes compiled into it.
3. At runtime, " Main.swf" will loadMovie (in LGPL terms, 'dynamically link with') "JSON.swf". The end user then will have the option of replacing JSON.swf with a newer version of the library, they could even write a replacement JSON.swf that does something else if they wanted. You'd only be obligated to release source code for the JSON.swf, but NOT for Main.swf
In my opinion, this fulfills the license requirements and protects your proprietary code. However, I'm not a lawyer, and I have a feeling most/all people on this list are not either. If the author of the JSON code goes after you, and everything I said was wrong, and a court agrees that the above is wrong, worst case scenario is you have to remove the JSON code and rewrite it from scratch. But I think that is very unlikely.
-David R
On 4/4/06, Dan Shryock < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Nicolas,
Thats what I was afraid of :(. It would be so much simpler if I could just write an app, and compile it as a single swf and not deal with technical issues due to licensing constraints. Oh well... thanks again to you and Ralf for your inputs.
Dan
On 4/4/06, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:> To me, this seems to imply that the situation which I mentioned above
> for C applications is correct. So my question is this: is compiling a
> swf which contains LGPL code the same thing as a statically linked
> library in terms of this license? If so, it seems to me that LGPL code
> must be used with more care in actionscript than in other languages
> (which lend themselves to easier use of dynamically linking).
>
> Dan
The linking exception of the LGPL is not so much easy to port to other
architectures than C. However I think that a loadMovie would clearly be
considered to be dynamic linking.
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Bateman - Flash Product Manager
BBC News Interactive
Tel: 0208 6248692
Mob: 07714 329073
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
