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.  

LGPL primary claims what the LGPL:ed code calls so I guess you mean the GPL.

In any case. Regardless of what licence the patch as a whole is (or must be
under) doesn't mean that it isn't possible to extract X11 license code from
that patch. Not even the GPL claim that code must be ONLY under the GPL.
It must be under at least one GPL compatible license but it says nothing
about other licenses.

In short:
The GPL claim doesn't (and can't) increase the restrictions of the code
published by other authors regardless of whether they use GPL:ed code or
not. The restrictions or lack of the restrictions will alway remain.

Also note that you can alway get rid of the claim by removing the
reference (call or whatever) to the GPL:ed code.
 
> 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?

I don't think it matter, I can't see any example where it matters at all.
Sure the more LGPL:ed only modifications the more time the integration
would take.

> > 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.

No, it can't since the patch wouldn't apply, so manual "surgery" is needed.
The person that merge can always make the merge in a way that doesn't
violate copyright, though it is obviosly no guarantee that the merger indeed
did. Futhermore since the Rewind function obviously must do that same thing
as Wine since both try to emulate Windows, it would stand  to reason that
the
functions would look very similar.

Regardles on what the merger actually did it would be almost impossible to
prove
that an actual infringement have taken place unless the substantial parts
was
almost exactly the same save whitespace or variable substitutions.
 
> > > 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.

First of all if the code was inconsequential you could easily rewrite it.
Secondly, as I said above, it would because almost impossible to prove,
since would be quite reasonable that the code was similar.

> > > 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.  

It would be quite easy to claim that context was just fair use qoutes
of the LGPL/GPL:ed code in order to more accurately illustrate to
the reader how the specific problem that the patch tries to solve
was solved. Indeed that is of the main reasons why diffs with context
is so popular and commonly used.

If you claim fair use the all the claims of LGPL/GPL is meaningless
since all licenses is null and void in a fair use context.

> 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.

The main problem is that some things that the LGPL and the GPL tries to
do is either not well defined (mostly LGPL) or obviously incompatible
with copyright law (mostly GPL). 

Copyright law wasn't designed with copyleft licenses in mind so some
thing that isn't very relevant there normal copyright is concerned 
is largely undefined.

Specifically patches (read: modifications) isn't a normally a problem
with normal copyrighted work since in order to for an end user to
benefit from the modifications he must legally buy of copy of the
orginal work and thus the orginal author will always be compensated.

With copylefted works, which the end user usually can get for free,
this breaks down... 

This is a much larger problem that I think most people realize,
since I can see no sane solution to this problem other than the
obvious one. "If you did't ask for compensation for each copy,
tough luck, you had your chance, don't come crying because
you made a bad choice. After all it was your voluntary choice".

Of course, if so, it would mean that all copyleft licenses were
essentially equal to the X11 license...