RE: hold off until the copyright can be clarified
MJ Ray <[email protected]> Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:02:44 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.schematics |
|---|---|
| Organization | Very poor |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2004-09-03 17:56:16 +0100 Anton van Straaten <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] Selling a book > based on a compilation of LGPL material is certainly legal and within > the > spirit of both the GPL and LGPL - every commercial Linux distribution > does > exactly that. > > The question is whether other people would have the right to copy > that book > and sell it themselves. Our agreement with contributors says they > can't. > Anyone who wants to can try copying the book and selling it: in that > case, > our publisher could choose to sue them. Worst case, the publisher > might > lose that suit for some reason. > > So, what exactly is it we're worrying about? At the moment, you have contributions under the LGPL-2.1 (I hope... my comments at the meeting about program-specific wording apply to an earlier LGPL). Clause 1 appears to be pretty clear that a compilation would be a derived work, while clause 2c requires that the entire derived work be available under LGPL-2.1 too. Clause 4 cannot be used for a book without very careful agreed definition of source and object forms, which you don't have, so how are you planning to take the LGPL-covered compilation non-free? Perhaps I should be quiet and let $RANDOM_large_contributor start threatening you with copyright infringement lawsuits just before you try to publish under a !LGPL... I really can't see many answers which won't scare any free-software-copyright-fearing publishers away, so you probably still only have free-friendly publishers to choose from. Either fix your copyright bug, or pledge to put the entire thing under a free licence. > [...] we want to be able to give a publisher some copyright > protection. > BSD/MIT/X11 alone won't do that, afaict. MIT/X11 allows you to use a non-free licence on a derived work if you wish. LGPL doesn't. Writing "this is LGPL but we're going to make a non-free derived source work" is nonsense. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click