[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: License issue
- From: Bert Frees <bertfrees@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:22:13 +0200
Like Jamie, I wouldn't be happy with a move to a more permissive
license, but I also wouldn't want to stand in the way either. However I
think we should be extra careful with the translation tables. It would
be "kind of" acceptable if people couldn't update their phone with an
updated version of the library, but we have to avoid at all cost that
people wouldn't even be able to update or add tables. Maybe we should
ask App developers that they have to find a way to let users easily
manage their tables? Then we can keep using LGPL for the tables at
least.
Bert
John J. Boyer writes:
> Reading through the messages in this thread, I don't see a difference
> between LGPL 2.1 and 3 that affects us. If some commercial companies
> think otherwise, that is their loss. I know for a certainty that
> libloluis is used in Android aplications. Maybe we should push Android
> over iOS.
>
> In any case, we are stuck with LGPL and there is no point arguing about it
> further.
>
> John B
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 08:29:46AM +1000, James Teh wrote:
>> As I understand it, the LGPL 3 still allows linking with proprietary
>> software. Otherwise, there'd be no difference between the GPL and
>> LGPL 3. Note section 4:
>> >4. Combined Works.
>> >You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken
>> >together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the
>> >Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for
>> >debugging such modifications...
>> In other words, you can link with proprietary software, but the user
>> must have the ability to modify the PGL library and run the
>> application with that modified version. This does cause problems for
>> iOS, but this was true for LGPL 2.1 as well:
>> >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.
>>
>> The problem for iOS is that a user can't use a modified version of
>> the library; they are bound to use the version provided by the app
>> vendor. Being able to obtain the source is not enough.
>>
>> Jamie
>>
>> On 15/05/2014 6:52 AM, 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.
>> >
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Other related posts:
