Re: (L)GPL quiz

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:27:59AM -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote:
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 16:31, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> 
> > just found this on Slashdot:
> > http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi
> 
> I just took it.  I did not realize the GNU licenses had such control
> over other peoples' software.
> 
...
> 3. Fred wishes to distribute Joan's browser linked to a third-party
> module.  The third party module has the following license:
> 
>     This code may be freely modified, copied and distributed, so long as
>     no fee is charged for it.
> 
> Would this violate the GPL?
> 
> I said number 4:  No, because the resulting work can still be
> distributed for free.
> 
> The answer was number 2:  Yes, because the GPL does not allow additional
> restrictions to be applied to any part of the code.
> 
> Maybe they should have been more explicit.  I think of a module as a
> plugin (application is not dependent on it), but they refer to it as if
> it is a library (application is dependent on it).

I interpret this to be a .o file. The GPL does not forbid you  to sell
your software (you may charge any amount of money for it - free speech,
not free beer). But the person you sell it to may put this same software
up on a public web server. They are free to do that! So requiring the
software to be distributed for free (as in beer) is an incompatible
requirement.

> 8. FooCorp distributes Frobber linked against an unmodified version of
> LibIdo. Does the LGPL require FooCorp to allow users to reverse engineer
> Frobber for their own use?
> 
> I said no.  I was wrong?!?  I have a strong belief that a library is to
> be used, and it should not have any control over the programs that link
> against it.  As much as I agree with people having the right to
> reverse-engineer, which is allowed in the U.S., I disagree that a
> library should have any control outside of its own domain over the code
> that links to it.
> 

I made the same mistake and spent half an hour staring at paragraph 6 of
the lgpl (the good thing about this test is, that it points to the
relevant paragraph in case you make a mistake).

LGPL: 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or
LGPL: link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a
LGPL: work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work
LGPL: under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit
LGPL: modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse
LGPL: engineering for debugging such modifications. 

However, you need to read paragraph 5 AS A WHOLE to see, whether 6
applies (basically, it doesn't if you use only very trivial parts
from the header files - but PLEASE read for yourself before commenting).

> I think this just shows that the GNU licenses cannot be trusted.  If
> they just stuck to their own code, I would not have to avoid them as an
> open source software developer.  It has to be one of the unfriendliest
> software licenses.  Microsoft EULAs are probably number one, but that
> does not mean that GNU has to compete in this arena.

Please note, that the GNU people don't intend to trick people in using
the (L)GPL, you took the test at their site, it was probably created to
prevent people from making misinformed deciscions (as users as well as
developers).

> All software developers should take this quiz before using the (L)GPL in
> their code.  They may agree with it, but everyone should be made aware
> of the ramifications of using it.

I fully agree with this. And to help people making this decision the
quiz is very helpful.

I learned two important things when I took the test about the licenses,
but it hasn't changed my (positive) attitude towards these licenses.

  Ciao
              Jörg

--
Joerg Mayer                                          <[email protected]>
I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know
what proactive means.