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

Small misstake.

"can" = "can't"

> > 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.

Oh, I HAVE read the LGPL. Whether Transgamings DLL use one or
more of Wine's DLLs in not relevant. The LGPL mainly says
that users of the LGPL work must be able to relink so the
"work as a whole" can be updated with a new version
of the LGPL:ed work.

So I see no serious problem at all. A small number of possible
pitfalls, yes. But nothing that is not easily fixed.

> > > 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.

OK, but I still do not quite understand what you mean:

With the MPL you can combine your work with the different work.
No problem.

The LGPL is a little more problematic since LGPL code can't depend
on non-LGPL compatible code. Since the plugin API presumably have so
sort of service API (presumably MPL:ed) that the plugin can call this
in some meaning can't be fullfilled.

This is on of the reason why I mean the LGPL is not well defined.
What depends on is not really well defined, so whether an LGPL
plugin to a MPL:ed project is allow is impossible to say.

Sure one possible interpretation exists that allows it but then in that
case it make most of the restrictions in the LGPL meaningless since
they are in that case easy to circumvent.
 
> > 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.

Note that you do also it in reverse. That is release it under the GPL
and then later retroactively relicense all your code under X11 license.

However this is not really a problem for the GPL:ed work.
It is usually enough that there is some GPL:ed code left
to "protect" the work against normal cases of copyright
infringement.

But sure you can extract the X11 part of the work if you wish...
 
> > > 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.  

What do you mean?
The GPL doesn't allow discrimating against non-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.

Still, this have nothing to do with copyright law.
Sure compensation because of gross negliciense or malice is still
possible but since it was for free, normal neglicience doesn't
apply. At least not in Sweden.
 
> > > > > 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 :)

Yes. :-)

Even if the cases where you would indeed be found liable the
possible compensation is usually VERY LOW compared to the US
in many cases lower than the lawyer fees. 

Since Sweden have a loser pays system the possible
gain for plainstiff is much usually less than the possible loss
(since you have to pay the defendent lawyer fees as well) so
only if REALLY sure to win you will actually sue. On the other
hand the defendent is very likely to settle if he think
he the odds is against it will usually be cheaper (since
he will have to pay the plaintiffs lawyer fees if you
lose as well).

So the number of liabillity trials in Sweden are much lower
than in the US. However since most settlement are usually
secret I have no idea how common settling actually is.