Re: Clear up my License information

Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > It depends on how you view the following: Is a collection of LGPLed
> > modules the SAME as an LGPLed framework consisting of modules.
> 
> Yes. The fact that the modules are logically connected somehow lies
> out of the scope of copyright laws. Each book in a series have
> invidual copyright for example.
> 
> Anyway, I can see why it should it matter to the LGPL if I use
> one LGPL work or several LGPL:ed works.

This is precisely why those who argue that Transgaming can keep
their mods in separate DLLs either hasn't read LGPL, or does not
understand what it says.  The "work as a whole" language is designed
to prevent just that.

> > 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".
> I don't know what SISSL is so I can't answer the question.

SISSL is Sun's Industry Standards Source License (roughly analagous
to MPL in mozilla) - an alternative choice to *GPL.  

> > > 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.
> 
> OK. Bad example, they are not compatible without the special clause.
> 
> Let take X11 and LGPL as and example instead they are compatible without
> a special clause.
> 
> If you release it under the X11 you give up the right to enforce some
> of the restrictions that the LGPL requires so you can't truely release
> it under the LGPL since the extra restriction can't be enforced on
> YOUR code since you already have given them up.

I understand what you are saying now.  Though what this means is that
you can 'pollute' any *GPLed project by injecting a fair amount of
X11 patches to it.   Interesting idea.

> > 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&commentso
> rt=0&tid=117&mode=thread&startat=300&pid=0
> 
> I can't find anything in the thread relevant to the statement above.

In that GPLed (kernel) code can only be used in GPLed kernels.  
 
> > > > 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.
> 
> Yes, but who will the publisher be liable to he doesn't require anything
> from the end user so he certainly can't be liable to him/her.

This is not true.  Think of it like a open playground.  Just because you
are giving it away for free, doesn't prevent one from being liable.

> > > 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?
> True, but then it is not clear that the extra restrictions give rise to
> any liabillity.

no, but it would allow a mechanism to pay for insurance. :/
 
> > > > Never underestimate the legal system.
> > > What do you mean?
> > er, which one?  I live in a society of getting sued over hot coffee....
> I do not. :-)

must be nice :)
 
> Anyway, I don't understand why it wouldn't be possible to change the license.

don't think I said *impossible*, but it would be difficult for any project
that isn't BSD/X11 and has a fair amount of changes added to it.


> > 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?
> 
> Yes, but now have are not talking neglisience any longer,
> we are actually talking malice and that have nothing to do
> with copyright law.

ok... go it.
 
> If I publish a public domain virus Iäm obviously liable copyright law
> or no copyright law. But never mind it is not relevant to the discussion.

Hmmm.  Is the GPL a virus?  (*big* :) )


-r