RE: AW: License proposal

>[...]
>So my question is: what about derived work where you simply _extend_ the
>underlying library classes? For instance, what if someone creates their own
>version of the ApplicationGateway? If they change the class itself, then
>that clearly constitutes a derivative work. But what if they merely extend
>it? I am tempted to say that's a derivative work as well, except for the
>fact that there are many places in Barracuda which are designed to be
>extended by the user.
>
>For instance, what about things like abstract classes (think event handlers,
>in particular) that MUST be extended in the end user application. In a case
>like this, I certainly DONT think that extending/implementing a Barracuda
>event handler constitutes creating a derivative work; if it did, then
>section c could be construed to mean any app which uses Barracuda must
>itself be licensed under LGPL.
>
>SO...I'd like some input on the whole derivative work thing...is there
>anyone who has done real legal analysis of LGPL implications? My question
>here really boils down to "what constitutes a derivative work?" Especially
>in an OO language like Java where you are designing things to be extended.
>Maybe the answer is that "as long as your class simply _extends_ an LGPL
>class, you are fine"...I'm ok with that. But does the LGPL license say that?
>Or does it say more than that?
>
>Perhaps someone at ObjectWeb can comment on this (Christophe, Francois,
>Matthieu, Alfred?)

The question you raise would only apply to derivative works that would be 
*distributed*. What the LGPL requires is that derivative works that *are 
distributed* be distributed under LGPL. But a final user remains free to 
tinker with the code to any extent and is not required to distribute her 
derivative works.

In LGPL, distribution is a *right*, but if you decide to distribute the 
software, you have the *duty* to provide the source code, and to *grant* 
distribution rights too.


>Christian
>----------------------------------------------
>Christian Cryder
>Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
>Project Chair, BarracudaMVC - http://barracudamvc.org
>----------------------------------------------
>"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Thelmo Loisio
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:40 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 13:34, Madl Alfred wrote:
> > > LGPL is "sticky" where BSD is not. Means: LGPL code ALWAYS has to stay
> > > LGPL. No closed source derivations are allowed of LGPL code. BSD allows
> > > closed source forking (like IBM or Sun are doing with Apache and Tomcat
> > > which are based on the Apache license which also allows that). I think
> > > this is the main difference...
> >
> > That could prevent some private (company) to found the development of
> > the project.
> >
> > I don't know how the license issue was addressed by two projects on OW
> > (ASM and JOTM) which was recently licensed under BSD license to make
> > them compatible with the Apache foundation. I even don't know which was
> > their license before.
> >
> > But this is the only real issue. If it possible, desirable or
> > undesirable to have this opportunity.
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Thelmo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Barracuda mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda

François LETELLIER
INRIA Rhône-Alpes - ObjectWeb Consortium Executive Committee
email: francois.letellier at objectweb.org - phone: +33 (0)6 84 64 00 24
http://www.objectweb.org - ObjectWeb middleware : provide your applications 
with the kind of freedom they deserve !