Re: MPL2 instead of LGPL
May I try to point out the elephant in the room? Most KDE applications and libraries are copyleft, with tremendous effort and contributions from a wide range of people. Since most of them belong to more than one author, it is not possible for a maintainer to simply re-licence an existing piece of software from copyleft to permissive style license; that requires getting all previous contributors on board and getting their explicit permission. However, if anyone is working on a new project based solely on permissive style licenses, the developer(s) are free to also release their new project in a permissive style license. I hope I did not digress. Best, Hörmet He who is worthy to receive his days and nights is worthy to receive all else from you (and me). -- The Prophet, Gibran Kahlil On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 3:24 PM Sandro Andrade wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:27 PM Roman Gilg wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:01 PM Sandro Andrade > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 5:11 AM Roman Gilg wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Hi Roman, > > > > > > > * Proprietary code static linking LGPL code is not practically > doable. > > > > [5] See also above ZeroMQ exception. > > > > > > This is a topic every now and then pops around when discussing > > > licensing issues. The FSF is pretty clear in stating the providing > > > object files are enough to enable users to relink with different > > > versions of the LGPL library. I see some projects using LGPL + static > > > linking exceptions and I've read all the things regarding "work based > > > on the library" vs "work which uses the library", header dependencies, > > > and so on but such LGPL exceptions look more like a clarification > > > point than a thing not already covered by LGPL. > > > > > > I really don't see the point of comments like "If you statically link > > > a LGPL library, then the application itself must be LGPL. We have had > > > our lawyer double-check on this in the past. Dynamically linking to a > > > LGPL library is the only way to avoid becoming LGPL", presented in the > > > stackoverflow link [5] you provided. > > > > > > Could you elaborate a bit why this is not practically doable or > > > legally incorrect? > > > > Hi Sandro, > > > > no I can't. I was just rephrasing what I read in some sources online > > and asking here for educated opinions on if this interpretation is > > right or wrong. Thanks for taking the time to "debunk" some of the > > myths floating around. > > > > Do you see it the same way in regards to the usage of templates in C++ > > libraries licensed under the LGPL? Is this also a "non-issue" in the > > end? > > AFAIK, and with all due IANAL disclaimer, this has been specifically > addressed at Section 3 (Object Code Incorporating Material from > Library Header Files) of LGPLv3. For LGPLv2'ed applications, expanding > inline functions and templates inside an application's object would > render LGPLv2 equivalent to the GPL. As stated in LGPLv3, even if the > application's object incorporate header elements which "are not > limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, > or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in > length)" you may convey such object code under terms of your choice as > long as: > > " > a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the > Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by > this License. > b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this > license (LGPLv3) document. > " > > Cheers, > Sandro > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Sandro >
Re: MPL2 instead of LGPL
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:27 PM Roman Gilg wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:01 PM Sandro Andrade wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 5:11 AM Roman Gilg wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Hi Roman, > > > > > * Proprietary code static linking LGPL code is not practically doable. > > > [5] See also above ZeroMQ exception. > > > > This is a topic every now and then pops around when discussing > > licensing issues. The FSF is pretty clear in stating the providing > > object files are enough to enable users to relink with different > > versions of the LGPL library. I see some projects using LGPL + static > > linking exceptions and I've read all the things regarding "work based > > on the library" vs "work which uses the library", header dependencies, > > and so on but such LGPL exceptions look more like a clarification > > point than a thing not already covered by LGPL. > > > > I really don't see the point of comments like "If you statically link > > a LGPL library, then the application itself must be LGPL. We have had > > our lawyer double-check on this in the past. Dynamically linking to a > > LGPL library is the only way to avoid becoming LGPL", presented in the > > stackoverflow link [5] you provided. > > > > Could you elaborate a bit why this is not practically doable or > > legally incorrect? > > Hi Sandro, > > no I can't. I was just rephrasing what I read in some sources online > and asking here for educated opinions on if this interpretation is > right or wrong. Thanks for taking the time to "debunk" some of the > myths floating around. > > Do you see it the same way in regards to the usage of templates in C++ > libraries licensed under the LGPL? Is this also a "non-issue" in the > end? AFAIK, and with all due IANAL disclaimer, this has been specifically addressed at Section 3 (Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files) of LGPLv3. For LGPLv2'ed applications, expanding inline functions and templates inside an application's object would render LGPLv2 equivalent to the GPL. As stated in LGPLv3, even if the application's object incorporate header elements which "are not limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length)" you may convey such object code under terms of your choice as long as: " a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license (LGPLv3) document. " Cheers, Sandro > > > Cheers, > > Sandro
Re: MPL2 instead of LGPL
Am 19. August 2020 19:27:09 MESZ schrieb Roman Gilg : On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:01 PM Sandro Andrade wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 5:11 AM Roman Gilg wrote: > > Hi, Hi Roman, > * Proprietary code static linking LGPL code is not practically doable. > [5] See also above ZeroMQ exception. This is a topic every now and then pops around when discussing licensing issues. The FSF is pretty clear in stating the providing object files are enough to enable users to relink with different versions of the LGPL library. I see some projects using LGPL + static linking exceptions and I've read all the things regarding "work based on the library" vs "work which uses the library", header dependencies, and so on but such LGPL exceptions look more like a clarification point than a thing not already covered by LGPL. I really don't see the point of comments like "If you statically link a LGPL library, then the application itself must be LGPL. We have had our lawyer double-check on this in the past. Dynamically linking to a LGPL library is the only way to avoid becoming LGPL", presented in the stackoverflow link [5] you provided. Could you elaborate a bit why this is not practically doable or legally incorrect? Hi Sandro, no I can't. I was just rephrasing what I read in some sources online and asking here for educated opinions on if this interpretation is right or wrong. Thanks for taking the time to "debunk" some of the myths floating around. Do you see it the same way in regards to the usage of templates in C++ libraries licensed under the LGPL? Is this also a "non-issue" in the end? I think all of this is pretty much a non issue. You are looking at this from the position of an engineer. But licenses are legal-speech and would be interpreted by a judge. Most likely a judge does not have the technical knowledge to understand the differences. It is very unlikely that a judge would understand the implications of different linker flags (static vs. dynamic linking). Anybody without a high technical background won't understand that. What matters more is the intention of the license. And that is clear. It's the "lesser" gpl. And it would be interpreted like that. The (l)gpl was written with C in mind. Adapting it to other languages is difficult for us, but probably not for a legal person. A template library is a library. That it is kind of static linking is an implementation detail. And here the intention matters: if one would have wanted the gpl restrictions one would choose gpl as license. But using lgpl clearly states that one doesn't want the gpl restrictions to hold. Granted all of that has not been tested in a court. Thus if one wants to be clear it might make sense to dual license or use class path exceptions, etc. But for our frameworks it's a non issue as we always stated the intention: allow users of Qt's commercial license to use our libraries. If a copyright holder would turn into a McHardy he would hopefully lose at court, especially if we as the community would contradict the claims. Cheers and IANAL Martin
Re: MPL2 instead of LGPL
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 6:01 PM Sandro Andrade wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 5:11 AM Roman Gilg wrote: > > > > Hi, > > Hi Roman, > > > * Proprietary code static linking LGPL code is not practically doable. > > [5] See also above ZeroMQ exception. > > This is a topic every now and then pops around when discussing > licensing issues. The FSF is pretty clear in stating the providing > object files are enough to enable users to relink with different > versions of the LGPL library. I see some projects using LGPL + static > linking exceptions and I've read all the things regarding "work based > on the library" vs "work which uses the library", header dependencies, > and so on but such LGPL exceptions look more like a clarification > point than a thing not already covered by LGPL. > > I really don't see the point of comments like "If you statically link > a LGPL library, then the application itself must be LGPL. We have had > our lawyer double-check on this in the past. Dynamically linking to a > LGPL library is the only way to avoid becoming LGPL", presented in the > stackoverflow link [5] you provided. > > Could you elaborate a bit why this is not practically doable or > legally incorrect? Hi Sandro, no I can't. I was just rephrasing what I read in some sources online and asking here for educated opinions on if this interpretation is right or wrong. Thanks for taking the time to "debunk" some of the myths floating around. Do you see it the same way in regards to the usage of templates in C++ libraries licensed under the LGPL? Is this also a "non-issue" in the end? > Cheers, > Sandro
