| |
Just for the record: IANAL
Wayne Gramlich wrote:
> Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > 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).
>
> 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 is yours?
Mine. LDraw files are source code (at least according to
the definition in the LGPL). And unless you consider
rendering a specific kind of compilation, LGPL would not
allow you to do anything useful with a parts library covered
by it. Since the parts library is "linked" statically into
the renderings, and cannot be substituted after the
rendering has been made, the clause cited above takes
effect.
> However, the ambiguity of the GPL license in important
> areas like this make the L/GPL a weak candidate for the
> LDraw license.
I would hardly say that GPL or LGPL are ambiguous licenses.
They may be difficult to understand, but I only know one
point where GPL and LGPL are slightly ambiguous - and so are
almost all other licenses in the same case.
Jacob
--
»When Roman engineers built a bridge, they had to stand under it while
the first legion marched across. If programmers today worked under
similar ground rules, they might well find themselves getting much more
interested in Ada!« -- Robert Dewar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) I don't know. I think when something is statically linked you can recover the original code with a disassembler. It's really still there in a different form. There's no way to disassemble a picture into the ldraw code without using the ldraw (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
