OSI Approval process

[Philippe Verdy]

Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu] wrote:
> The LGPL still uses the term Library.  There is nothing in the license
> specific to libraries.  The license (though relicensing under GPL is
> allowed) is specific to Libraries.

Quite a perfect contradiction between your two last sentences ! You say BOTH
"nothing in the licence specific to libraries" AND "the licence is specific
to libraries"

(hmm... with a minor difference on the capital, but given that you don't
seem to include a definition separating the two terms, I can only assume
they mean the same thing).

Reread the LGPL, the "Library" term is defined and covers more than what you
may imply. This term is used in fact like "Covered Work" in the GPL. It
needs to use the term "library" only to define the additional permissions on
the covered work, because these permissions are related to allowing linking
and embedding within proprietary works for which you don't have to supply
the "Corresponding Source", this external proprietary work not being
included in the Covered Work, provided that some conditions are met that
allow replacing the part covered by the licence.

So the term can cover things like a LGPL-licenced database, a LGL-licenced
data table used by a proprietary program, or some LGPL-licenced
documentation which you can bind with the proprietary program, or a
LGPL-licenced collection of icons or computer-generated graphics. The
licence does not restrict the kind of binding you can do (it's not
necessarily an API or ABI, it could be as well a binding by a disk location
of the installed program, where a LGPL-covered work could be located and
should be replaceable and for which you'll need the corresponding sources
without having permission or the sources of the proprietary program).

In those cases, the LGPL just says that the proprietary program remains
proprietary, but cannot restrict the use of the LGPL-covered part that it
uses and that the user can also replace without affecting the validity of
the licence of the proprietary program, that shoulkd continue to work in the
same conditions with the modified "library". The LGPL also says that one can
take the LGPL-covered part and extract it from the distribution of the
proprietary program to build a newer program licenced under LGPL or GPL,
without needing permission by the copyright owner of the proprietary program
(in other words, the LGPL part must not be covered by the terms of the
licence covering the proprietary program; a simple exclusion of its
copyright will be enough, so that the copyright and licence of the LGPL
library can fully apply to that part of the distribution).

The GFDL is quite similar to the LGPL: it grants additional rights that may
be needed for allowing the reuse of documentation in other contexts, but
also to protect authors and translators, due to the existence of
supplementary legal restrictions that could forbid you to do that, unless
this was specifically granted by the GFDL.

The Affero GPL is also similar: additional rights granted on top of the GPL
which defines the minimum rights granted and the minimum (and maximum! No
further obligations allowed in the GPL) obligations you have to respect.

The only additional obligations or granted rights that may exist outside of
these licences are those mandated or officially granted to the licensee by
any applicable law or applicable justice decision at his place of residence
(such prevalence of law occurs with any kind of licence or contract anyway,
whoever these come from, no licence can prevent it, unless it says
explicitly that such intrusion of law will imply the immemdiate termination
of the licence or contract: this may happen after an unpredictable major
event that will completely forbid to apply the clauses of the licence or
contract in a balanced way).

In France, this possibility for immediate complete termination of a contract
or licence (without even the need for compensation between the affected
parties, except if provided and organized by law) is referred to as "force
majeure", a valid cause for contract and licence termination, that must
still be proven by official facts (otherwise it may be contested in a Court)
and includes really catastrophic and unavoidable events (like external or
civil war, acts of terrorism, major natural or industrial catastrophic
events), and almost all of these events will require a ministerial decision
by the government (including for the state of war), unless there's no more
government, in which case there's no more applicable law, and all contracts
and licences become non enforceable...