To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 3189
3188  |  3190
Subject: 
Re: License Intent
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:38:01 GMT
Viewed: 
3404 times
  
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:

a) GPL or LGPL style license, the "viral effect" of the
    license means that those who get the rendering also
    should get (access to) the source for the DAT file and
    the relevant parts of the LDraw Parts Library.

Actually I beliee that this is the exact case where the
LGPL differes from the GPL.

Since the Parts 'library' will only be referecned as a
library, I think that (if the LGPL were used on it,) it's
license wouldn't pollute the license of the model/scene it
was used to render.

From <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html>:

  »However, linking a "work that uses the Library"  with the
   Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the
   Library (because it contains portions of the Library),
   rather than a "work that uses the library". The
   executable is therefore covered by this License. Section
   6 states terms for distribution of such executables.«

I.e. a rendered LDR file _is_ considered a derivative work
and thus covered by the license.  LGPL is only special for
dynamic linking (roughly speaking at least).

Play well,

Jacob
--
A password should be like a toothbrush. Use it every day;
change it regularly; and DON'T share it with friends.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: License Intent
 
(...) [snip] (...) I read the exact same clause and come to exactly the opposite conclusion. My reasoning is that because linking is something you do to code, not LDraw parts; the clause has no bearing to LDraw parts. Is my interpretation right, or (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: License Intent
 
(...) Actually I beliee that this is the exact case where the LGPL differes from the GPL. Since the Parts 'library' will only be referecned as a library, I think that (if the LGPL were used on it,) it's license wouldn't pollute the license of the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR