OSL 2.0 and linking of libraries
pitrp at wg78.de
Fri Apr 2 06:37:46 UTC 2004
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:32:41PM +0100, Robert Osfield wrote:
> 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
As stated bevore, i would try to avoid raising the number of licenses
in general. There has to be a better way.
Nevertheless, i also would like to have an off the shelf track to
In the end, the problem boils down to clarification and not to
Perhaps one could just
1) include a clarification statement in the license
2) make it clear that it is only in effect as long as the license is not
accompanied by a clarification notice by the cpr holder.
On 1) This way, it doesn't matter what derived work is anymore because
we just define it. That should reduce the FAQ size.
On 2) Because there are different opinions concerning this point, it is
good to make it clear that the license respects this fact. So whenever i
want to link against a library, i know what the default is and i'll see
if a clarification notice is shipped. That shouldn't take too long and
is acceptable for me.
A problem is though, that any file can include a different license note
and i can never be sure that i havn't missed something.
Does anyone know how a situation is handled if a file COPYRIGHT is
shipped and it tells me that the included license applies to all files
distributed together with it and then there is a file in a subdirectory
that includes a different copyright notice at its top?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss