LGPL clarification
Bryan George
bgeorge at mitre.org
Wed Nov 1 18:57:58 UTC 2000
That's an interesting notion - let's follow it:
If I create and distribute a license which is a "derivative work" based
on the LGPL without permission from the FSF, I could be sued for
copyright violation. I couldn't claim "fair use" exemption either,
since the license would benefit commercial interests.
Under current copyright law, reproducing a similar concept, even using
different language, would be a violation once I've been exposed to the
original work, so I couldn't write a license from scratch that resembled
the LGPL either without FSF permission. Given that the probability that
FSF would give that permission to someone outside FSF is roughly, oh,
zero, that means that the LGPL is for practical purposes the only Open
Source license that can ever exist to cover libraries.
Sorry, but that sounds a little too much like giving FSF ownership of
truth and beauty, if you ask me... :)
Seriously, though, if there are copyright issues involved with license
surgery, I'd like more information on what they are and how to avoid
them.
Bryan
John Cowan wrote:
>
> Bryan George wrote:
>
> > > - If not, would it be difficult to surgically alter the LGPL to remove
> > > the OMAREC and maintain GPL compatibility?
> > >
> > > No. All you have to do is retain section 3.
> >
> > Sounds like it may be the way to go.
>
> Unfortunately, the very first line of the LGPL prevents this solution:
> variants of the LGPL may not be created.
>
> --
> There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
> to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
--
Dr. Bryan George Phone: +1 (703) 883-5458
Lead Signal Processing Engineer FAX: +1 (703) 883-6708
The MITRE Corporation Email: bgeorge at mitre.org
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd., M/S W622 Internet: http://www.mitre.org
McLean, VA 22102-3481 USA
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list