LGPL question
Hi everyone! we are thinking about releasing a framework in Java under the LGPL. That is because we have no choice in putting it under the GPL, so it would be either proprietary or LGPL. The question is about LGPL itself and what its implications are. That is, I read that if I make a work linking to the framework, I can release it under any term I want, providing I grant modification rights for personal use and the right to reverse the work to debug such modifications. Somewhere else I also read that I must ensure to redistribute the framework under the LGPL conditions AND the derivate work as object code. Am I the only one to see a contradiction here? Thanks a lot for any feedback cheers paolino ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: LGPL question
Gordon Burditt wrote: What *is* the source code to music? The question is devoid of meaning. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: LGPL question
OK, you asked. I am thinking about going to scotland in the next couple of days. Is it worth the trip? Looks like a lot of snow, temps below freezing, winds down to 30 mph (though sunday could be blizzards). Am I going to get any skiing in? I just wanted some sort of responce, this is also in the thread How is Scotland at the minute? Recommendations?. Thanks. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: LGPL question
Sorry, as you may have guedsed, wrong newsgroup. I blame google groups, and I am sticking to it ;-) ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: LGPL question
If my company, let's call it Bony Corporation, decides to release a music CD Get Right with the DRM with a rootkit that contains copyrighted music and LGPL-licensed software, is it required to distribute the *music* source code under the LGPL or GPL? What *is* the source code to music? A non-DRM'd, non-encrypted copy of the music? I think it would irrelevant. Let's say that the disk contained copyrighted software rather than music, with DRM to control access to the software. IMO the GPL would still not require the copyrighted software to be released under the GPL simply because the DRM software was protected under the GPL. To clarify, since the music on the CD does not share code at all in thise particular case with the Lesser GNU GPL or GNU GPL licensed software, the license does not come into effect. From the GPL FAQ: What is the difference between mere aggregation and combining two modules into one program? Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program. Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them. What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: LGPL question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Burditt) writes: What *is* the source code to music? A non-DRM'd, non-encrypted copy of the music? I would say that the score is the equivalent of the source code, the mixing details being like build instructions and the performance being the equivalent of the compiled binary. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: LGPL question
What *is* the source code to music? A non-DRM'd, non-encrypted copy of the music? I would say that the score is the equivalent of the source code, the mixing details being like build instructions and the performance being the equivalent of the compiled binary. What about improvisation? And what about folk music where you have a core, and add lots and lots of ornamentation on to the tune while playing and the tune doesn't sound as the core anymore? Often, the score shows the basic layout of the song, this applies to much of the classical music too, and it is left up to the player to fill the dots. In my opinon the source for the music is what you get through the speakers. It is like keyboard macros in Emacs, you can record them, and then play them, the source for those would be the output on the monitor, step by step. As in music, but where the steps would be each note played. The different between software and music is that you can change the program while it runs, while you can't do the same with music. ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: LGPL question
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:26:38 +0100, Gordon Burditt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If my company, let's call it Bony Corporation, decides to release a music CD Get Right with the DRM with a rootkit that contains copyrighted music and LGPL-licensed software, is it required to distribute the *music* source code under the LGPL or GPL? What *is* the source code to music? A non-DRM'd, non-encrypted copy of the music? From the LGPL: 0. This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program ... Music is not software. I don't know if US copyright law makes a distinction, but in my jurisdiction, software is considered a literary work, and music is not. As for source code: Source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For a library, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the library. That doesn't really match music at all. So, nice try, but it won't fly. /L -- Lasse R. Nielsen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine' ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
