Re: Clear up my License information

Patrik Stridvall wrote:

> > LGPL also makes association claims ("work as a whole") - I
> > said what I meant.
> OK, but it unlike the GPL contains exceptions for users of the
> LGPL:ed code so I can't see why this is relevant.

It depends on how you view the following: Is a collection of LGPLed
modules the SAME as an LGPLed framework consisting of modules.  If
you read MPL, there is a restriction on that such that in "larger works",
it only covers the original MPL portions.  LGPL does NOT have that constraint.
As an example of this, I say that if you want to write a propriatary OpenOffice
(LGPL)
plugin, I think you *must* accept SISSL, because only it makes an allowance
for "larger work".
 
> So any derivation claim can't be based on anything the (L)GPL says.
> They have to claim derivation in a general sense. This is I think
> in the case of Rewind is all but impossible.

This is what one would *hope*...  
 
> > This is incorrect.  Patches on GPLed work MUST be GPLed (not
> > GPL compatible).
> > You may relicense it as something else also, but at least one
> > MUST be GPL.
> 
> If you have released the code under an GPL:ed compatible license
> (read: on that have less restrictions that the GPL)

the S/N ratio on the comment is pretty low.

> you can't truly release it under the GPL since you already have given
> up some of the orginal rights that copyright law grants you.

If you can't release it on a license that has less (restrictions), and you certainly
can't release it on a license that has more, it certainly seems like the only
license you can use is GPL....

> In short:
> You can consent (or not) to its release as GPL but it has no legal
> meaning since, as I said, you already have giving up some of your rights.
> 
> If the GPL had insisted on this the LGPL => GPL paragraph would have
> been meaningless for starters. It doesn't so that is that.

er, the LGPL->GPL paragraph is so the mechanism they have to change an LGPLed
licensed
item (as you can't change it otherwise).  I'm not sure what you are getting at.
 
Remember that I am admitting that I am using the LGPLed source and not
the X11 source.  

> The only thing the a license change can do to old code is changing
> the burden of proof. Nothing else. It can't make anybody more or
> less guilty (or liable).

FSF's stance is that the context of the code makes a difference.  See
becker's response in:
 
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7665&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=117&mode=thread&startat=300&pid=0
 
> > > Of course, if so, it would mean that all copyleft licenses were
> > > essentially equal to the X11 license...
> >
> > Another possible outcome might be that if you require any
> > compensation, you lose any indemnifcation (and this is not too far
> > fetched).

> But no copyleft that I know of require anything from the end user so
> the end user can't claim any compensation based of this.

I wasn't talking about the end user.  I was thinking about the publisher.

> As for non end users, that is people that modify the works.
> Well, since they modified the your work they are probably
> on their own since any accident might be their fault.
> 
> No I don't think that they would be worse of concerning possible
> liabillity.

someone needs a spellchecker :).  But why would someone distribute anything
that would open themselves up to liability for not cost?
 
> > If this happens, it would be *infinitely* worse than X11, and you are
> > forbidden to change the license to boot (unless you add that "later" clause AND
> > FSF gives up copyleft - two big Ifs).  Never underestimate the legal
> > system.
> 
> What do you mean?

er, which one?  I live in a society of getting sued over hot coffee....
 
> Obviously I can change the license to something less restrictive on my code.

or more restrictive..  add to taste :)

> If I said that all my code release to the Wine project was retroactively
> public domain it would be instantly and for all times to come.

This is true only for projects where one entity owns the copyright for the
entire piece of software.  If this isn't the case (as is the case with many
OS projects), changing the license is much more difficult to do.

> Sure it wouldn't protect me if the code contained some sort of virus or
> timebomb or whatever but that have nothing to do with copyright.

somewhere, we went passed each other.   How can you say it has nothing to do
with copyrights when the indemnification in software licenses leverages off
of copyright law for its teeth?

-r