Addendums to the LGPL

[David Johnson]

Foreword: I am not a lawyer. For this type of situation you really, really 
should talk to a lawyer. Preferably one not already working for any company 
with a vested interest in this protocol.

On Wednesday 11 September 2002 03:04 pm, Kelvin Proctor wrote:
> ... The specification is freely
> available for download but to make/sell a product based on the spec you
> need to join the industry group and pay a yearly license fee to get a
> vendor ID ($US250 p.a.).  (This is to keep the vendor ID's unique etc..)

I sounds to me like there are no restrictions on using the protocol if you 
never see the spec. You don't mention the legal weapons they use to enforce 
their wishes. Is it an NDA? A patent? Or merely a notice in the spec 
unilaterally imposing obligations?

> "This license applies only to this software library itself and does not
> imply any right to make or sell XXXX based devices.  A license to make
> and/or sell XXXX devices must be obtained from the YYYY."

This should be perfectly sound either way you look at it. If your company 
really does have the legal right to sue people for using their protocol, then 
the LGPL is a no-op, and your library is in essence proprietary freeware. On 
the other hand, it may be entirely possible that your users are under no 
obligation to obtain licenses for the protocol since they have never seen the 
spec.

The latter is why you need to talk to a lawyer. You could get in serious 
trouble with your company if the license allows people to use the protocol 
without entering into legal agreements.

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
pgp public key on website
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3