OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries

Robert Osfield robert at openscenegraph.com
Thu Apr 1 19:32:41 UTC 2004


I'm a similar situation to Peter, currently by OS library is released under a 
modified LGPL as per the WxWindows license, but I'd like to adopt a license 
which is clearer w.r.t patents, OSL 2.0 would appear to fit this bill except 
for the liense propagation.  Peter's modification would at first glass allow 
usage without propagating the license to programs using the library.

It'd be nice to have an official OSL version specifically which allows for 
programs to link against libraries without license propagation, as LGPL is to 
GPL.  This could then be used off the shelf without need for customization.  
It would certainly save on time when adopting the license, and also education 
of users who'll need to get to grips with the implications of yet another OS 

Or is there a license ready and waiting that I havn't spotted?

Thanks in advance you any guidance that you can provide.

On Thursday 01 April 2004 16:11, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
> It looks like the language you suggested is perfect for the template you
> selected.
> Rod
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  pitrp at wg78.de (Peter Prohaska)
> Date:  4/1/04 9:55 am
> To:  license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subj:  OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
> Hi,
> because I do _not_ want to use the GPL nor the LGPL, I have decided to
> distribute my software under the OSL 2.0.
> Section 1.c says:
>   to distribute copies of the Original Work and Derivative Works to the
>   public, with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative
>   Works that You distribute shall be licensed under the Open Software
>   License;
> I do want to allow linking a library included to software under a
> different license.
> As far as i understand it, the only thing I would have to do is to
> include a notice that goes something like:
>   "Clarification of section 1.c of the license:
>      Linking a program against a library or loading machine readable
>      code compiled from Source Code is _not_ considered creating a
>      derivative Derivative Work."
> Am I correct and is there a well known template for such a notice that
> one should use? The request is probably common, I think.
> Thanks,
>   peter.
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list