Comments interspersed:
On December 8, 2001 08:45 pm, you wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 04:50:42PM -0800, User1 wrote:
> > The GPL does not prohibit reverse engineering of the GPL'd source code
> > ("Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> > covered by this License; they are outside its scope."). One can thus read
> > the DOSEMU source code and take notes about how it works, and have LGPL
> > code based on the notes. I think Kevin did that; certain BOCHS' device
> > drivers resemble DOSEMU in both organization and the names of variables.
>
> This is not called reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is reading
> the disassembled code of a non-free program. With free software we don't
> need reverser engineering, we can just read the source. This is one part
> of free software, being able to study how something works.
>
> > Alternatively, why not make our own license agreement that is identical
> > to LGPL except permits using GPL code? Then we'd only need to worry about
> > the possibility that DOSEMU's GPL license doesn't let us link with DOSEMU
> > object code, which is GPL. The assumption people are making is that
> > anything that uses GPL code, becomes GPL. That is not so; we will be
> > linking with object code that, itself, is GPL; that will make derrivative
> > works of the source that produces such object code GPL, but not plex86
> > itself.
>
> The LGPL already permits linking with everything. The GPL only with
> GPL-compatible licenses and the LGPL is compatible with the GPL (else we
> couldn't link a GPL'd program with glibc). I'm was not thinking that
> everything should be GPL, I only asked why plex86 is under the LGPL. If
> there is no reason to put plex86 under the LGPL, I would rather change
> it to the GPL. This because I don't want to see plex86 code being used
> in some proprietary program (vmware for example).
If we GPL Plex86, the host system will have to be GPL compatible. That means
we could never implement a Win2k hosted version of Plex86, e.g. Now, this may
now be a concern for most, but why choose a license that put such a arbitrary
restriction on us? I am sure there are some who would like this ability, once
Plex86 is mature.
Also, I don't think you (Jeroen and User1) really understand the GPL. You
can't "sheild" proprietory code from the GPL by an LGPL layer. Proprietory
code and GPL code can only coexist under two circumstances: 1) the copyright
holder grants an specific excetion or relicenses under a different license to
permit this coexistance and 2) the inherent exception that allows GPL
programs on proprietory OSes or proprietory programs on GPL OSes, where
either can run without the other and so is not considered a "derived work".
In particular, though an LGPL library can link with GPL code, it cannot link
with proprietory code at the same time. We can hope for 1) (as has been
mentioned elsewhere in this thread) but there's no hope for 2) as the host
code is specific to the host OS.
Note that the GPL license cannot change the license on proprietory code, but
linking GPL to proprietory code (directly or otherwise) is a copyright
violation and is not legelly permitted. In other words, GPL does not change
anything else, but it does prohibit the use of the GPL code in some
circumstances.
All in all, I think LGPL is the right choice for Plex86 and would recommend
against changing it. Where GPL code could be useful, let's first try to get
use permission from the copyright holder (via an LGPL dual license?) and if
not possible, do an "enlightened" reimplementation.
>
> > By the way doesn't anyone find this a bit odd:
> >
> > " 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
> > versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new
> > versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ
> > in detail to address new problems or concerns."
> >
> > In my humble opinion, Why would anyone put their code under GPL or a
> > later version? Anyone making GPL code should do what DOSEMU did: demand
> > GPL version 2.0 (or any exact version). (The GPL says that "This General
> > Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
> > proprietary programs." I don't think that something that is LGPL is
> > "proprietary"; further more, the GPL says that anything that uses GPL
> > must have source code available, etc., but does it say that anything that
> > uses GPL code via linking, must itself be _GPL_? Can't it just have
> > source code available etc.?)
>
> Why would anyone not do so? The GPL will be in the same spirit and if the
> next version restrict certain things, you can still do it under the
> version of the GPL stated in the copyright. If it gives more permission
> to the user, the user gets those permission immediately. This will never
> be permitting linking with non-free code or so, because that isn't in
> the same spirit.
>
> Why would anyone want to do so? It makes it possible to change the
> license even if there are a lot of authors. If you don't state this in
> the copyright every author must release his work under the next version.
> Imagine this situation, a flaw is found in the GPL and the FSF releases
> a new version. With the "any later" clause you can easily change to that
> new version. Without it, it will take a lot of administation time. In
> very big projects like linux it is just impossible.
>
> I think this is one of the most misunderstood things in the free
> software community.
>
> Jeroen Dekkers
