On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 05:19:33PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > But I can see where the FSF is coming from too because once
> > you weaken that
> > requirement, then the end user is locked into the binary
> > offered with no
> > ability to update the supposedly free library.
>
> Note that what I want is not 'free firmware', for all I care the
> firmware can be read-protected, unavailable, the serila number dusted
> off, and the chip inserted backwards to confuse the potential copyer.
> What I want is a free library.

You know in some ways this is only interesting part of this massive thread that
I started. Let's work this through. Here's the gist of the LGPL:

1) The library can be freely used and distributed.
2) Any code that simply uses the library is not affected by the LGPL status
   of the library. So it can be closed source. More on this in a minute.
3) However any changes to the library itself are subject to the LGPL and the
   source must be released if the modified library is released.
4) Users have the right, and developers have the obligation to provide, a
   mechanism for the user to update the library. The consquence of this, which
   is the problem with the JAL library, is that if there is no procedural
   mechanism to separate the applications code and the library code, that the
   only way to accomplish this is to release the applications source. This
   negates point #2 which is the whole purpose of the LGPL.

So the question hinges not on #4, which JAL must get rid of, but on point #3,
which directly affects the "freeness" of the library itself by enforcing that
changes to the library itself is shared by everyone. It's the typical
Stallman enforced sharing scenario. Without it individuals can upgrade a
library and keep the upgrades to themselves.

Now huddle in and listen closely to the next question: Does that matter?

My best guess is that it probably doesn't. JAL libraries will be just as
effective with only points #1 and #2, and dropping #3 and #4. It's unlikely
that any JAL library will be a massive upgrade/overhaul that obsoletes a
previous version. And for the most part users of complete projects wouldn't
care much anyway.

So given that the answer is simple: relicense everything under the BSD license.
It meets points #1 and #2, while making no further requirements on users or
developers.

Hope this helps,

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads