On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 06:09:49PM +0200, Ake Hedman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> we was talking of this matter some time ago. There where more people 
> then me on the list who where looking for a lighter LGPL. I just found 
> that the wxWidgets license, which is OSI approved, have an extra clause 
> to the standard LGPL that follows

Looks pretty good for starters.

> 
> ---
> 
>  EXCEPTION NOTICE
> 
>   1. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give
>   permission for additional uses of the text contained in this releas
> of
>   the library as licenced under the wxWindows Library Licence, applying
>   either version 3 of the Licence, or (at your option) any later version of
>   the Licence as published by the copyright holders of version 3 of the
>   Licence document.

Just the future license thing. Standard procedure.

> 
>   2. The exception is that you may use, copy, link, modify and distribute
>   under the user's own terms, binary object code versions of works based
>   on the Library.

That's fine.

> 
>   3. If you copy code from files distributed under the terms of the GNU
>   General Public Licence or the GNU Library General Public Licence into a
>   copy of this library, as this licence permits, the exception does not
>   apply to the code that you add in this way.  To avoid misleading 
> anyone as
>   to the status of such modified files, you must delete this exception
>   notice from such code and/or adjust the licensing conditions notice
>   accordingly.

That makes sense. You can't add GPL or LGPL code to the library without
the GPL or LGPL taking effect.

All fine until here.

> 
>   4. If you write modifications of your own for this library, it is your
>   choice whether to permit this exception to apply to your modifications.
>   If you do not wish that, you must delete the exception notice from such
>   code and/or adjust the licensing conditions notice accordingly.

I disagree. This exception essentially BSDs the library. Anyone can now take
the library, add a few functions to it, and not have to share that 
functionality.

> 
> ---
> 
> This makes it perfect as a license for embedded open source stuff.

Not exactly. It solves the linking problem with point 2. But modifications
to the libraries source itself should be subject to LGPL.

I'll summarize my stance (I thought quickly but oh well ;-):

1) I think that libraries and frameworks should be open source.

2) I have no objection to anyone USING (emphesis mine) such a library or
framework and releasing resulting binaries, or embedding into a system in
such a way that the end use cannot necessarily update the open source part
as the LGPL dictates (the linking problem alluded to above).

3) However anyone CHANGING/AUGMENTING the library/framework should be subject
to the open source nature of the library/framework. So those changes should
be published.

The library/framework is a shared resource that many developers can leverage
in order to build projects. However it's not going to go far if everytime 
someone makes the library/framework better, that it doesn't get shared.

This doesn't negate the choice of using the library in a proprietary way. But
it does make developers think twice about changing the library or simply
working around whatever issue is there.

I'm an academic, so I freely admit that I don't really understand the paranoia
about keeping all commercial code private. If an application can leverage
90 percent of a library, but needs to add a couple of functions to it to make
it more useful, then why not share those functions. Your application is still
your application, but the library is a public resource that we all share.

Anyway that's my nickle on the subject.

BAJ
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist