Updated license - please comment

[Christophe Dupre]

I'm unsure at this time about your comments regarding OSD#6 and 8, but one
thing seems clear to me: one can distribute an application that's
statically link with the library. Such an application would be a 'work
that uses the library', and the only limitation with a binary linked with
library is that you must tell whoever you give it to that it contains such
a library and give access to the code of the library (or point to the web
site, I guess). AFAIK, the LGPL also has this clause.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Mark Rafn wrote:

> Am I the only one who thinks 2a and 2d are unacceptible?  It violates
> OSD#3 by limiting the type of derived work, perhaps OSD#6 by limiting
> itself to creators of software libraries, and perhaps OSD#8 by being
> specific to the product "software library".  As far as I can tell, it
> prevents anyone from distributing an application that statically links the
> library into it (if such an application is a derived work of the library,
> at least).
>
> It doesn't even seem close to me.  Let me know if I'm insane, or reading
> it wrong, but I can't see how such a restriction can be considered open
> source.
>
> I know they're straight from the LGPL, but they are irrelevant there
> because the LGPL is a pure superset of the GPL (see LGPL section 3),
> unlike the license under discussion.
>
> Yes, this indicates that I think the LGPL without section 3 would
> be non-open-source.
> --
> Mark Rafn    dagon at dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>
>


--
Christophe Dupre
System Administrator, Scientific Computation Research Center
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY        USA
Phone: (518) 276-2578  -  Fax: (518) 276-4886

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3