Am Donnerstag, den 06.07.2006, 07:58 +0200 schrieb Murray Cumming: > > Am Mittwoch, den 05.07.2006, 18:49 +0200 schrieb Ulrich Eckhardt: > >> That's true. LGPL requires that people are able to relink your > >> executable with > >> a modified version of the LGPLed code, so either you ship objectfiles or > >> use > >> dynamic linking. Or, of course, provide the source. > > > > I was once told that sigc++ had no intent of being such restrictive. I > > asked for a more liberal license because such requirements are not > > acceptable for my needs. This is why for myself I switched to > > MPL/GPL/LGPL triple-license. But I was told that > > 1. sigc++ showed their intent clearly on the website. > > 2. changing license would be a long-term thing. > > Yes, and nothing has changed since then: > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/libsigc-list/2006-February/msg00001.html
That was the mail I referred to. This is some relief but not sufficient. > > > But now I read that those restrictions DO apply. > > You didn't read that from a maintainer. You will always hear different > opinions from different people on legal questions. I do not think this is a legal question, rather it is a question of policy. And as such what matters is the policy of _each_ copyright holder. Obviously there are differences (Ulrich Eckhardts policy is stricter!?). Also it is not clear to me how binding a notice on a website can be. > > As stated in that previous email, at some point we should explicit state > this in an exception in the headers, but I haven't got around to it, and > nobody has cared enough to write the exception text for us: Or felt fluent enough in legalese for this. Or really understood the complications (I do not _fully_ comprehend them, too). If I understand it correctly, the exception must be bullet-proof (of course ;-) ) and in difference to the LGPL allow the following use-cases: 1. Using all the template stuff (generally code in headers with more than 10 lines per functional unit) in libsigc++ from application / library code. 2. Linking libsigc++ statically, at least on Windows or other technically restricted platforms (I dislike Windows-DLLs). Also do you want LGPL 2.1+ or LGPL 2.1 to be the base of the license (base+exception being the license). Another proposal would be tri-licensing MPL/GPL/LGPL as does Mozilla. This is the combination I use for my own free C++ library code. I basically hope that it's good enough. Copyright and author's right (I will never again dare to mix those two) are complicated matters and of vast importance for software developers. > > Murray Cumming > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.murrayc.com > www.openismus.com > _______________________________________________ libsigc-list mailing list libsigc-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list