W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-binary@w3.org > November 2004

Re: licensing ... [Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases [Re: [xml-dev] [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release

From: Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:26:12 -0500
Message-ID: <41A38ED4.1020109@lig.net>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Cc: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, public-xml-binary@w3.org

I think that I'm pretty clear on GPL/LGPL; I've been part of these kinds 
of discussions for a very long time, since the posting of the first 
GPL.  I actually used both commercial Emacs products (CCA and Unipress I 
think they were called) at work at GE Lighting in 1985; products that 
caused Richard to write GNU Emacs and the GPL 1.0.  I've also imported 
GPL/LGPL software into several large companies over the years so I jump 
into this discussion out of long habit.

You are right that the one question asked specifically about Java and 
GPL, which was probably an oversight by the questioner.  The last 
sentence of Eben's answer however makes it clear that LGPL+Java wouldn't 
be a problem.  His answer on LGPL was: "If the author of the other code 
had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution to 
the combined work could be released under any license of your choosing."

sdw

Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:

>I believe that there is some confusion here between GPL and LGPL. Or at
>least if you folks aren't confused you are confusing me, and by
>extension possibly others.  Note that the notes below differ in which
>one they refer to, and some of the links in other postings have, I
>believe, been to discussions of GPL whereas the initial question was, I
>think, about LGPL.  As I understand it GPL and LGPL are different, and
>LGPL is weaker than GPL.  See, for example,
>http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php, which I beieve is
>the "authoritative source" on LGPL somebody was asking for earlier.
>
>Just speaking personally, LGPL may be weaker than GPL, but I read the
>document referenced above and I must confess that I still find it a bit
>scary.  I do understand that many people are comfortable with these
>licenses, but I think it's really a good idea to understand them clearly
>if you are going to have anything to do with software using them.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-xml-binary-request@w3.org
>[mailto:public-xml-binary-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Stephen D.
>Williams
>Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:47 PM
>To: John Cowan
>Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org; public-xml-binary@w3.org
>Subject: Re: licensing ... [Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases
>[Re: [xml-dev] [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release
>
>
>
>No, that is not right.  Eben, who as I mentioned often represents FSF in
>
>some sense and as a technical law professor should know, didn't draw 
>that distinction.  I would argue that it is an artificial semantic 
>conclusion.
>
>LGPL allows you to use a library  in a program (or another library) that
>
>has any license, but not distributing a modified library without source 
>code.  Using a library means any use, while modifying it means actually 
>changing the source code that went into the library.
>
>Subclassing is not different semantically from creating a new class with
>
>an instance of the LGPL'd class, creating a corresponding public method 
>for every public method in the original class, and calling, with or 
>without additional semantics, the corresponding LGPL'd method.  Both 
>simply use the LGPL'd class without modifying its source code.
>
>The intent of LGPL is to allow use of any kind in any kind of program 
>while maintaining the integrity of the LGPL'd library.  If you include 
>the library and decide to call one of your own methods instead of one in
>
>the library, you haven't distributed a modified version of the library.
>
>You could in fact distribute a binary-only commercial library or 
>application that uses the unmodified LGPL'd library.
>
>sdw
>
>
>John Cowan wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Stephen D. Williams scripsit:
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Eben:
>>>
>>>The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the 
>>>rules
>>>of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The 
>>>situation is no different than the one where your code depends on
>>>      
>>>
>static 
>  
>
>>>or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new 
>>>combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under 
>>>the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the author of the other code
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution
>>>      
>>>
>to 
>  
>
>>>the combined work could be released under any license of your
>>>      
>>>
>choosing, 
>  
>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>But that leaves open the question of subclassing.  If some application 
>>classes are subclasses of classes in the LGPL library, does that make 
>>the total application a "work based on the library"?  The FSF seems to 
>>think so (as does the Apache Software Foundation), because a Java 
>>program is essentially one big library.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
swilliams@hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 19:24:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 1 December 2005 00:07:42 GMT