Thank you guys for clarifications.
Doug,
I want to send my changes to you. They are in few files. Should I send you by
email or is there a more official place to upload ? Also do I need to send the
whole Judy source or just the changed files are okay ? lmk. Thank you.
kind regards,
pradeep
________________________________
From: Doug Baskins <[email protected]>
To: Stavros Macrakis <[email protected]>; john skaller
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Judy license;
Stavros:
Well I did not want to start up a firestorm. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot
comment on
L/GPL "worthiness". The original intent of using a LGPL instead of a GPL
license was
to explicitly allow programs to link to Judy (either statically or dynamically)
without
incurring any changes to their codes license, due to linking to Judy. A more
liberal
license was not usedto prevent people from licensing Judy (with perhaps slight
changes)
with a different licenseand to charge for it. I.E. HP did not want to have to
pay for a
license for using Judy inthe future. I am very disappointed every time I hear
of someone
not using Judy because of a fear of "compromising" any code that links with
Judy.
This is simply not the intention of the LGPL license -- in my opinion. I also
feel that
if someone contributes/enhances Judy, then they should make those changes
public and
available to the whole programming community. I am also a critic of
intellectual property.
Thanks for you interest,
Doug
Doug Baskins <[email protected]>
>________________________________
> From: Stavros Macrakis <[email protected]>
>To: john skaller <[email protected]>
>Cc: Doug Baskins <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
><[email protected]>
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:47 PM
>Subject: Re: Judy license;
>
>
>Yes, I agree that there are all sorts of issues with L/GPL.
>
>
>As for the header files, I don't think you need to be so meticulous. There is
>an explicit provision for interface specifications, a.k.a. header files
>(LGPLv3, section 3).
>
>
>About the theoretical possibility of having two texts which are word-for-word
>identical, one a copyright violation, the other not, that is actually a
>well-established principle of copyright law in general (not just for software)
>as opposed to patent law, where, if you come up with the same thing
>independently and innocently, you can still infringe the patent.
>
>
> -s
>
>
>On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM, john skaller <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>On 31/08/2012, at 6:13 AM, john skaller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 31/08/2012, at 4:15 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:33 AM, john skaller
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 30/08/2012, at 3:13 PM, Bisht, Pradeep wrote:
>>>>> ... Can I link judy to my program statically ? ...
>>>>
>>>> ...Technically if you do your program is LGPL too....
>>>>
>>>> You are mistaken. Though the linked program is a "derived work" of the
>>>> LGPL code (*), Pradeep's code does not have to be released under the LGPL.
>>>
>>> I am not mistaken, you just misread my comments.
>>> By "program" I meant binary executable. Thought that was clear.
>>
>>Actually, GPL and LGPL are fraught with legal difficulties.
>>They're bad licences because they try to make logically unsustainable
>>distinctions .. although its not clear a naive judge would agree.
>>
>>In theory, when you compile your C source the resulting
>>object file is a derived work because you included
>>an LGPL header file (in fact the pre-processed C code
>>is also a derived work: macro expansions and header
>>file inclusions are derivations).
>>
>>If instead you copy the interface specification, your source
>>is a derived work.
>>
>>However if you merely read the specification and write your
>>own interface based on the intellectual content, that is NOT
>>a derived work. The API itself is not copyrightable, established
>>for US domain at least by the very recent Google vs. Oracle
>>in respect of Google using Java library APIs in Android.
>>
>>For that reason I have code which uses GMP, but I wrote the
>>interface (in Felix code) from the specs, rather than mechanically
>>deriving it: my interface is not a derived work and so is unencumbered.
>>
>>I also distribute Judy with my product. Technically the claim that the
>>product is FFAU is incorrect. As a whole, it is FFAU, but each part
>>has a separate licence. This is the way it works for "compendium"
>>products that are aggregations rather than derivations. The best
>>known example of that is Linux distros: they can include GPL'd works
>>without themselves being GPL. The individual component remains GPL.
>>
>>So we have the ludicrous situation where you can distribute non GPL
>>code containing a header file which is GPL, and all is OK, but if you
>>physically
>>copy the header file into one of your files, that file is now GPL -- despite
>>the two encodings being logically identical.
>>
>>Similarly, you can distribute your code plus some other GPL'd code
>>and as long as the client compiles and links it into a program
>>there's no breach of licence. But if you do that, and distribute
>>the result, you're breaching the licence. I know of commercial
>>companies that actually take the sources to the client's place
>>and do the building there for just this reason.
>>
>>The whole concept of is rubbish.
>>It is nonsense in the modern world. IMHO of course :)
>>
>>
>>--
>>john skaller
>>[email protected]
>>http://felix-lang.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Live Security Virtual Conference
>Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
>threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
>will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
>threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
>_______________________________________________
>Judy-devel mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/judy-devel
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Judy-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/judy-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Judy-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/judy-devel
