Re: Problem with MPL

On 2007-11-11, Peter Morris <support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does the LGPL allow developers to compile the source directly into their app
without having to distribute their app source?

The answer is somewhat gray, and advocatists arguments and real world
practice differ. If you are really interested in that read the part between
parenthesis. If not, assume NO, and GOTO after brackets

(
All from being in Open Source circles for years, and own interpretations.
I'm not a lawyer. It hopefully does give an impression of what to look for
if interested

GNU view: library must be exchangable. So this means relinking with newer
version must be possible. Besides dynamic linking there is the pretty
useless in practice method of distributing everything in object code (for
relinking) and linkeditors like on old IBM systems.

Practical view: no, but this rule is dodged or flat-out ignored on an
immense scale. Specially on Windows.

Gray area: afaik there is a clause that says the relinking clause is only
active when it is reasonably possible. The opinion of what is reasonable
wildly differs, and there is afaik no case law yet.

So in short this is a same kind of minefield as the GPL-MPL incompability we
are also not interested in, but we simply want to defuse it, and stop the
incessant discussions, like this one. Luckily, in this case we had a bit
more foresight, and were able to defuse it before it really started.
)

Which is why Free Pascal/Lazarus avoids it all together by using.
(L)GPL-with-exception. For that it is definitely allowed. Note that the (L)
is between parenthesis, since the "exception" grants much more freedom (in
the usable for commercial development sense) than the (L), which makes the
L-or-not issue moot. Sometimes it is also named "(FPC) modified GPL". (which
strictly was an older wording of the same thing, later updated to official
GNU legalese)

The exception is quoted earlier, but is roughly an allowing of linking the
library without further ado if the licenses of the other components are met.

The original wording was something like "The FPC team gives you the
permission to link this library to other libraries regardless of their
license".

So I iterate again, FPC/Lazarus are no vigilante GNU license freaks. We are
simply stuck with it, and try to find a route to co-exist with the other
Open Source (Object) Pascal codebases. Unfortunately this particular case
requires some help from the other side from time to time.

All Free Pascal library source comes under this license (or is dual licensed
to it with MPL, like several jedi projects), exactly because the same
reasons you name for choosing the MPL. Just keep in mind there was no MPL
when this all was started. 1993-1994 pretty much was the Antique as far as
Open Source goes.

Luckily the MPL problem is pretty much limited to shipping lazarus versions
with these components preinstalled. (it is no GPL violation to let the user
do it themselves). So this whole discussion is not to get our hands on the
sourcecode, but simply to avoid some stupid minefields in licensing.

( parenthesis again, not interesting for you,

The only major problem could be the JVCL. Afaik JVCL is also a patchwork of
many contributors without explicit signing over the rights to some
foundation( which would allow the foundation to relicense), thus both
Lazarus and JVCL can't relicense. Which is a pity, since that seems to
exclude easy windows installers with JVCL components preinstalled.
)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Javascript Best Practices Document v1.0
    ... >> have libraries to promote. ... But short-term expedience is not a justification for a particular ... practice as a "Best Practice". ... > A developer may need a short-term solution, ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Dr Jones the mistakes so far
    ... 6-7 day per week Lyme practice, there is a 5-6 month delay between ... retiring and surrendering my license to practice medicine in the state ... Each board or commission established under chapters 369 to 376, ... Revoke a practitioner's license or permit; ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: newbie prolog question, passing functions
    ... version 2.1 of the License, or any later version. ... See the GNU ... uses http://www.freetds.org/ libraries ... Area code seven eight zero, Exchange four six six, Local zero one zero nine ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
  • Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
    ... Now the question is whether your license can impose conditions ... both libraries. ... distribution of his program, then users who would get value from Les's ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
    ... Now the question is whether your license can impose conditions ... both libraries. ... distribution of his program, then users who would get value from Les's ... Will Fedora break the law and their principals? ...
    (Fedora)