LGPL clarification

[Dave J Woolley]

> From:	Bryan George [SMTP:bgeorge at mitre.org]
> 
	[DJW:]  <IANAL>
> Under current copyright law, reproducing a similar concept, even using
> different language, would be a violation once I've been exposed to the
> 
	[DJW:]  Are you sure of this.  I thought that this
	was one of the key differences between patents and
	copyright.  (Obviously a straight translation into
	a foreign language would be a violation, but I thought
	that paraphrasing was different.)

> 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.
	[DJW:]  
	I would have thought that refusing permission would
	have been in conflict with the position on patents
	taken by the GPL and key members of the FSF, even
	if you are correct about copyrighting concepts.

-- 
--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.

</IANAL>

>