Re: LIcensing of libwp* and its effect on that of libcdr and libvisio
On Monday 27 of February 2012, Michael Meeks wrote: On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 20:00 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote: The older libwpd, libwpg and libwps libraries are LGPLv2+ The newer libcdr and libvisio libraries written in the same style are MPL/LGPL.v+2/GPLv2+ However, as they depend on libwp* stuff, and link to them (statically) or maybe include inline C++ code from libwp* headers, that is irrelevant, isn't it, they effectively become LGPLv2+-only, too? Linking statically might have an unintended licensing impact (IANAL), but my hope would be that we could re-work the (fairly small?) parts of libwp* that are required for libcdr / libvisio and/or persuade the authors to MPL dual license them, such that we can ship them on iOS :-) [ I assume that is the question behind the question ]. IANAL either, but I think the linking mechanism on its own doesn't matter. AFAIK the LGPL distinguishes between a derived work of the library and work using the library, and our case should be the latter. While the sooner requires the result to be LGPL, the latter only has smaller requirements, which can be satisfied by providing a notice and our source code. Specifically, I think section 5 of LGPLv3 applies here. But the proper solution to this problem is finding somebody who can't say IANAL and thus should be able to provide a founded answer. I would be surprised if e.g. SUSE lawyers haven't run into this yet. -- Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: LIcensing of libwp* and its effect on that of libcdr and libvisio
requires the result to be LGPL, the latter only has smaller requirements, which can be satisfied by providing a notice and our source code. Providing source code (or pre-built object files even), is not enough, necessarily. I am thinking from the perspective of somebody wanting to distribute an app using LibreOffice code, and potentially then also libwp* code, on the iOS App Store. (LibreOffice itself I hope by then is LGPL/MPL, MPL being the license that would be used in this case.) As long as there is a risk that even one of the unknown number of people holding copyright to libwp* doesn't approve of that, I wouldn't suggest risking it... (The same holds for other LGPL libraries LO potentially can use.) It's not hard to interpret LGPLv2 so that it prevents that kind of DRM-encumbered distribution of binaries. (After all, it was written in frigging 1991.) No matter how good intent the app developer has, how nicely he/she would provide source to everything , etc. (Back in 1991 most compilers used on what was then normal desktop Unix systems were definitely not free (in any sense), so the fact that iOS development program membership (needed to distribute apps through the App Store) costs €79/a is fairly irrelevant, I think, from LGPLv2's point of view. It's the DRM and review process that somebody might say is unacceptable. I think. But, IANAL.) (And as for LGPLv3, it probably is even easier to interpret it in this way, or perhaps one of its intents is specifically to prevent such distribution? I say this based only on my prejudice and vague knowledge of FSF's and their Dear Leader's opinions of Apple and their ecosystem...) --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
LIcensing of libwp* and its effect on that of libcdr and libvisio
The older libwpd, libwpg and libwps libraries are LGPLv2+ The newer libcdr and libvisio libraries written in the same style are MPL/LGPL.v+2/GPLv2+ However, as they depend on libwp* stuff, and link to them (statically) or maybe include inline C++ code from libwp* headers, that is irrelevant, isn't it, they effectively become LGPLv2+-only, too? IANAL, am I missing something? --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: LIcensing of libwp* and its effect on that of libcdr and libvisio
Hi Tor, On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 20:00 +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote: The older libwpd, libwpg and libwps libraries are LGPLv2+ The newer libcdr and libvisio libraries written in the same style are MPL/LGPL.v+2/GPLv2+ Right. However, as they depend on libwp* stuff, and link to them (statically) or maybe include inline C++ code from libwp* headers, that is irrelevant, isn't it, they effectively become LGPLv2+-only, too? Linking statically might have an unintended licensing impact (IANAL), but my hope would be that we could re-work the (fairly small?) parts of libwp* that are required for libcdr / libvisio and/or persuade the authors to MPL dual license them, such that we can ship them on iOS :-) [ I assume that is the question behind the question ]. Presumably some sort of audit would be necessary there; fun as it is ;-) I'll prolly delay doing that until after the go-oo libreoffice audits are done [ currently in progress ]. So - for iOS, I guess that means disabling them in configure / elsewhere for now. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
