On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:46:39PM +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > I'm not sure I completely understand your goals for a license
> > so permit
> > me this one question - what prevents you from using a BSD type license
> > for the libraries, while keeping the compiler itself under GPL?
>
> I don't want anyone to charge for a modified library. I think the BSD
> does not prevent that.

As someone else pointed out, the GPL/LGPL allows for a "resonable" charge
for getting the library to you.

I think the worse issue is that under the BSDL there is no obligation
to release changes to the text library, even if you distribute executables
that utilize the modified library.

Look, from close examination it's clear that the LGPL has its claws out.
However it seems to me that those claws are there for a reason. An Embedded
LGPL license should reflect the sprit of the LGPL while dealing with the
realities of embedded development. Consider these changes to the LGPL to
generate the ELGPL:

1) The licensee rebuild clause is dropped. There should be no requirement that
licensee has the ability to build new executables when incorporating ELGPL code.
It's a loss, but there's simply too much of a strain in an embedded system to
essentially force firmware update ability, and requiring the developer to
offer a toolchain to the end user.

2) Explicitly state that the compilation or static linking of ELGPL and non
free code together does not affect the status of the non free code. But with
the caveat of...

3) The resulting executable is in fact a derived element of the ELGPL library.
Hold on Wouter, hold on. Here's why. In order to ensure that the library
remains free it is necessary to enforce the license upon changes to the
library.  Without making the resulting executable a derived work, there's no
way to subject changes to the library source itself to redistribution.

So to summarize: Drop the rebuild clause, make executables a derived work of
the license, so that developers who make changes to the library, then
distribute the resulting executables using the modified library are obligated
to distribute the changes to the library (to those who get the executable).
This will retain the sprit of the LGPL while facilitating the development
style that work for us. At no point in time is non free source code that uses
the library, modified or unmodified, affected by using ELGPL code, no matter
how they are combined.

Any thoughts? And are there any licenses that are phased in this ballpark?

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics