Re: (L)GPL quiz

On Mon, 27 May 2002 18:08, Joerg Mayer wrote:

> 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.

I interpret "This code ..." to mean .c and .h files.  They are not
speaking about object files but the source code.  It is more common for
source code to be "modified" than object code.  At least as long as you
are not talking about virii for Windows.  :)

> > 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).

I do like that it had pointers.

> 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).

The quiz showed the opposite.  It said that the application linked
against the library.

> > 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).

I understand why the quiz was developed.  It makes sense.  I just
believe it shows that the GNU licenses have a list of requirements upon
developers, who only link against the software, that goes beyond the
justification of keeping the GNU-licensed software "free".  The licenses
just go a few steps too far into my comfort zone.

> > 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.

Yes.

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

Well, I did say some people will agree with it, but I never claimed they
were right.  :)

Our conversation also proves that different people interpret the
licenses differently.  They are not simple licenses.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]