OpenEuphoria

Re: Open source licenses explained

• Posted by Bob Thompson <rthompson at rthompson.karoo.co.uk> Sep 22, 2006
• 706 views

D. Newhall wrote:
> 
> Matt Lewis wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I'm curious as to how the LGPL is more restrictive.  You can't even share
> > binaries with the 2.5 source license, let alone source.  The LGPL just 
> > goes the other way, saying that you *have* to allow distribution of the
> > source. 
> 
> The only way that the LGPL is more restrictive is that you have to open source
> your contributions. The current license allows you to keep your improvements
> hidden if so desired.
> 

I was referring to the following extracts from LGPL and how they restrict
selling bound/shrouded/compiled programmes. I'm off on business now for
two weeks so I won't be able to respond.

Let me know if I have it wrong.

Regards,

Bob

5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library,
but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with
it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation,
is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the
scope of this License. 

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.

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link
a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work
containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms
of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work
for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
modifications.