License Committee Report for September 2009

[Will Robertson]

On 17/11/2009, at 7:07 AM, Bruce Perens wrote:

> Giancarlo Niccolai wrote:
>> OTOH, I invite you to list the programming languages (or more  
>> specifically, the embeddable programming languages) which are  
>> distributed as straight LGPL or GPL with no exceptions or no dual  
>> licensing.
> In this day of runtime shared libraries, LGPL should not be an issue.

I'm not so sure? The LGPL says: (§4)

> d) Do one of the following:
> 	• 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of  
> this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form  
> suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or  
> relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version  
> to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by  
> section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
> 	• 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the  
> Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a  
> copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system,  
> and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library  
> that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version.

So if you wish to embed Falcon into a binary rather than just link to  
it, your work essentially becomes open source. As the only example I'm  
familiar with, take the example of LuaTeX, in which the pdfTeX engine  
is opened up and grafted together with Lua. (My understanding of the  
way these embedded languages work only:) This is quite significantly  
more than just linking to a shared library -- i.e., it would be  
completely impossible for a user to simply relink a new version of Lua  
into LuaTeX.

In this case Lua and pdfTeX are both BSD-free (or equivalent) so the  
end result doesn't matter, but if you're talking about proprietary  
software then the above clauses would make a LGPL-Falcon quite  
unattractive -- allowing a user to recombine your application with the  
embedded software gives them the keys to the castle.

If my understanding is correct (and it very well may not be! -- please  
advise) then there seems to be a gap between the restrictions of the  
LGPL and the "freedom" of the Apache Licence that this FPLL is trying  
to fill:

  - If Falcon has BSD,  then Falcon can be used and abused without  
restriction by the proprietary software.
  - If Falcon has LGPL, then the software must be unduly opened up.
  - If Falcon has FPLL, then the software can stay closed but must  
reference Falcon.

I think we're all in agreement about point 1; what about points 2 & 3?

-- Will