Re: Clear up my License information

Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > > Note quite. First of all the LGPL is not quite that viral
> > > as the GPL.
> > >
> > > The LGPL (unlike the GPL) even with its most restrictive
> > > interpretation only applies to code that is either directly derived from
> > > LGPL code or code that the LGPL work depends on for it functionallity.
> > This is patently false.  If this were true, one could
> > statically link against a LGPL library and not be affected.
> Oh, sure you have to be able to relink the work as well,
> but that is not really relevant for patches since they usual
> works on the source code level of things, so I didn't meantion it.

I think it's *still* unclear.  Easy to show this in java: Let's
say you have a LGPLed jar file in package "gnu.foo.bar".  I believe
from what rms has said in the past, if you write "package gnu.foo.bar;" in
your code, I think a LGPL claim can be made on what you write, especially
if you call something in gnu.foo.bar.  

While I agree it is not AS viral as GPL (not sure if anything can be that viral),
it is certainly still viral.  Probably wouldn't have said anything, but you did
use the words 'most restrictive interpretation'....

> Too trivial modification to be covered by copyright at all.

gads....  He wants REAL examples?

> But it doesn't really matter since the idea or fact that an
> if is needed is unprotected.

one could come up with an if (let's say if( setup_fn() && setup_fn1() ) ).
It can be a gray area.

> > The funny thing is that it can be argued that if you don't
> > use K&R styling, you'd probably be safe, as the patches would not have
> > any reference to the LGPLed "if".  In this case, the "if" could be considered
> > to contaminate the patch,
> 
> No it wouldn't. The patch wouldn't apply directly so any added if to the
> Rewind tree would be because of the mergers "unique" expression using the
> unprotected fact or idea that an if is needed. Sure the function in LGPL tree and the
> X11 tree would likely be the same after the merge but that is not a problem. The
> similarity is only because the problem was solved using a standard programming method
> based on the same fact and ideas.
> 
> In short:
> Only "unique" expression is protected not facts, ideas or methods.

Don't get me wrong - I am in 100% agreement with you here.  But I think I'll wager
a drink (coke, pepsi, beer..) that someone is going to make an LGPL claim on some
inconsequential code sometime in the future.....  After all, that's what the license
was intended to do.

> > in the sense that you cannot say the patch was X11. All that you can 
> > (and should) say is that your contributions are licensed X11.
> As I sidenote I don't usually consider the context of the patch as truly
> belonging to the patch.

I think that is a reasonable view, but then, it's not like GPL claims on
software is made by reasonable people.  I'm sure rms would disagree with
you on this one.  I don't think we are disagreeing in principles here.
But I'm a stickler for details, especially with legal wording since weird
stuff happens in the realm.

-r