LGPL question

[Arandir]

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Rob Stubbs wrote:
> They could not (at least it would be very difficult to) duplicate the set of
> algorithms without studying the code.  So, my original question was if someone
> modifies the original library by adding a callback function that would use a
> proprietary routine instead of one that exists in the library, does this violate
> the LGPL?  If the proprietary routine is useful by itself without the original
> library, then I have no problem with this routine remaining in a proprietary
> library and it probably doesn't violate the LGPL.  In fact, I would like to
> encourage such use.  However, what about the case that the proprietary algorithm
> by itself is useless.  This routine is not called directly by any user of the
> original library, it is only useful as a low-level utility routine by a
> higher-level function that is called directly by the end user of the library.
> In this case, would the proprietary routine be considered a derivative of the
> original library and thus be licensed under LGPL as well?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are concerned about someone using their
own proprietary routine instead your OSS routine. If the two code bases are
separate, I still don't see how this is a problem.

But how could you prove a violation anyway? What's the difference between
calling MyFunc() and calling MyFunc()? In your case, this is a callback
function, so the difference is between (*()) and (*()) [or somesuch syntax].
When you get to this level, you're trying to copyright an API. Is that really
what you want to do?

> Again, if it is legal to do this, is there a clause that could be added to the
> LGPL or similar license that would make this a violation?  If so, what would be
> the least restrictive way of wording this clause to accomplish this?

This is so similar to the java runtime thread, that I'll interject a bit of my
own philosophy on why I think this stuff is going in the wrong direction. If
you're talking about freedom, then you're talking about limits to restrictions
in some form or another. Zero restrictions is not practical in the real world,
so what type of restrictions should be allowed? Simple. Restrictions against
restrictions is sufficient. The restrictions in the GPL are there to prevent
other people from restricting the author's code.

Restrictions based on API's or runtime linking are not restricting anything but
the normal use of the software. Although they may assuage your apprehensions
that someone, somewhere may be using proprietary software, they do nothing to
further protect your own source code. And they certainly do not add any
freedoms to the user.

-- 
Arandir...
_______________________________
<http://www.meer.net/~arandir/>