[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: License issue
- From: "John J. Boyer" <john.boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:49:59 -0500
GPL was inherited from brltty. They agreed to let us use LGPL. If I start any
new software projects I will avoid both licenses. They are much too
restrictive. I want my softare used as widely as possible.
John
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:21:33PM +0100, Michael Whapples wrote:
> I am fairly certain, but I thought that GPL and LGPL allows
> recipients of the licensed material to use it under the version or
> newer versions of the license.
>
> What I mean by that is if you give me code under LGPL version 2 then
> I am free to redistribute it under the terms of LGPL version 3.
>
> See the notice text:
> "This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
> version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html#SEC4
>
> The incomprehensibility of LGPL and GPL are one of the reasons why I
> would never use those licenses on my own projects, its important to
> know what rights you are granting.
>
> Are contributions to liblouis and liblouisutdml subject to one
> handing over copyright? If yes where is this stated, I have not been
> asked to agree to handing over copyright (eg. the python bindings I
> did for liblouisxml, I was doing as an individual and never
> reassigned the copyright).
>
> If copyright is not handed over then you may face issues for
> inclusion into Apple appstore (probably not from me but others might
> not grant permission).
>
> Michael Whapples
> On 14/05/2014 21:52, John Gardner wrote:
> >
> >Hello all, in the early life of liblouis we adopted lgpl as our
> >license. I do not recall any discussion of versions of that
> >license. there were 2 at the time, and I believe we just adopted
> >#2 because it was the most recent.
> >
> >In the meantime, LGPL#3 has come out and it is now listed
> >somewhere as the official license for liblouis. I certainly do not
> >recall any discussion of making that change. Perhaps others on
> >the list can jog my failing memory.
> >
> >In any case, I have been advised by people who keep better track
> >of license terms than I that LGPL#3 is completely unacceptable to
> >companies and agencies who need to use liblouis with anything that
> >is not open source. They tell me that LGPL#3, as opposed to
> >LGPL#2 and 2.1, no longer permits an LGPL-licensed library to be
> >used with software that is not open.
> >
> >I have just read over the two licenses. The preamble to LGPL#2
> >contains the very clear statement: "We use this license for
> >certain libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into
> >non-free programs."
> >
> >There is absolutely nothing clear to me in LGPL#3. I have read
> >over that license and frankly I do not understand one word. I
> >encourage any of you to try and figure it out. Go to
> >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
> >
> >You can find the LGPL#2 at
> >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html This is
> >hardly a paragon of clarity but at least I can figure it out.
> >
> >Since the big company lawyers are concerned about #3 and not about
> >#2, and since our purpose is to use LGPL for the following reason
> >stated in the preamble to LGPL#2 "the Lesser license provides
> >advantages in certain special circumstances. For example, on rare
> >occasions, there may be a special need to encourage the widest
> >possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a de-facto
> >standard. To achieve this, non-free programs must be allowed to
> >use the library."
> >
> >So LGPL#3 has now been hi-jacked away from that purpose of the
> >LGPL#2, and we cannot use it. Therefore I request that all
> >references to liblouis license state that we are using LGPL2.
> >
> >While on the topic of licenses, I also would like for us to
> >clarify the position we take for Apple and other systems that do
> >not have any mechanism for permitting users to get the source code
> >-- as required by LGPL. In such cases, we should simply put in
> >instructions as to how that source code can be obtained. Whether
> >this technically meets LGPL requirements is perhaps not clear, but
> >it does certainly meet the need. And it permits liblouis to be
> >used in those closed systems.
> >
> >John Gardner
> >
> >there are terms in that license that are unacceptable to many
> >commercial users. I have been blissfully unaware, but I have been
> >approached by a major company who wants to use liblouis but is
> >unwilling if we are using LGPL#3.
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >John Gardner
> >
> >
> >
> > |
> >
> >
> >
> >President
> >
> >
> >
> >|
> >
> >
> >
> >Description: Description: Description: ViewPlus
> >
> >541.754.4002 x 200
> >
> >
> >
> > |
> >
> >
> >
> >www.viewplus.com <http://www.viewplus.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This message and any files
> >transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for
> >the use of the individual to whom they are addressed. If you are
> >not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure,
> >dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited; please
> >notify the sender and delete the message. ViewPlus Technologies,
> >Inc. accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from
> >this email.
> >
> >____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >Download the Voiceye or Phonemarking App from Google Play
> ><https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.voiceye.reader>
> >or from the App Store for IPhone
> ><https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/voiceye/id496389982?mt=8>
> >
> >on your mobile device to scan the code below and add my contact
> >details to your mobile device.
> >
> >9407576B-AC6D-4A15-B188-2A61F1107A7D
> >
> >If you would like more information on Voiceye, please contact
> >ViewPlus sales by clicking here
> ><http://www.viewplus.com/contacts/contact-sales/>
> >
>
--
John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer
Abilitiessoft, Inc.
http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Madison, Wisconsin USA
Developing software for people with disabilities
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Other related posts:
