On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 18:20 +0200, Aristid Breitkreuz wrote: > 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.
Hence the need for an official exception. > > 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. Yes. > 2. Linking libsigc++ statically, at least on Windows or other > technically restricted platforms (I dislike Windows-DLLs). Only a very small part of libsigc++ can be linked dynamically. I don't think we will ever allow that part to be linked statically in proprietary applications. > Also do you want LGPL 2.1+ or LGPL 2.1 to be the base of the license > (base+exception being the license). At the moment, we say "either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.", and I have no plans to change this. That would be a separate and more difficult discussion. > 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. I see no problem with LGPL+exception. > Copyright and author's right (I will never again dare to mix those two) > are complicated matters and of vast importance for software developers. Still, nobody has cared enough yet to write that exception text. -- 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
