Re: Three problems with Chinput
Then, how do you think about the relationship between the linux kernel
and close sourced modules, like NVidia kernel driver? Don't they obay
those two rules?
Regards
James Su
Yong Li wrote:
>On Thu, 1 May 2003, Yu Guanghui wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi
>> I didn't see any violation. SCIM is LGPL, the upsteam author (Su Zhe) provides
>>the source. The upstream author also writes the pinyin module, and decides not
>>to release the source. Pinyin module should not be considered as part of SCIM.
>>It's a standlone program use SCIM API that releases under LGPL.
>> So the SCIM will be put in Debian main (it's LGPL and don't depend on pinyin
>>module, there are other input modules), and pinyin will be put to non-free.
>>
>>
>
>Here is why I think it might be a violation.
>
>As I understand it scim is under LGPL and pinyin is a loadable module. For
>this combination I'm only aware of two possibilities for the module not
>have to be released under LGPL or GPL-compatible license:
>
>1. If the aforementioned module is a standalone executable and only
>dynamically linked to the libraries of scim. when started the module must
>run in its own space.
>
>2. If the module is not a standalone executable and is dynamically loaded by
>the main program (scim in this case). Then the main program must use fork
>and exec to invoke the module to make it a separate program.
>
>The pinyin module is obviously not a standalone executable! It is
>physically distributed as a so file. So possibility 1 is definitely out.
>All the evidences suggest that scim doesn't fork and exec the module.
>Instead it is loaded in its entirety into the main program's space.
>Function calls are made and data structures are shared between the two
>entities. So, imho, they form a single program. As such the module must be
>treated as an extension to the main program and be released under the LGPL
>or a GPL-compatible license. You might want to refer to the topic on how
>to treat the plug-ins for a GPLed program in GNU's GPL FAQ.
>
>The uniqueness about this scim situation is that it is the author himself
>who "violates" his own license. For all the years I have been following
>the open source development, this is the first time I have ever seen this
>happen. Strictly speaking it is not a violation for the author himself.
>Because from legal standpoint of view, a license such as GPL/LGPL is a
>contract from the author for the users of his program. The author himself
>is not bound by the license. However I think for everyone else, such as
>Anthony, who want to redistribute the pinyin module, it is a violation of
>the LGPL license.
>
>Of course this is only my personal opinion based on my own understanding
>of GPL/LGPL license. This is such a rare and unique case. That's why I
>think it's important, if you want to include it in debian distribution, to
>bring this up to debian-legal and hear what those experts have to say.
>
>Granted even if someone redistributes the pinyin module and violates the
>LGPL license, it's highly unlikely the author will ever pursue him/her and
>enforce the license. After all it's the author's intension of doing so.
>So the legal risk is minimum. However this does not make it right. If this
>is indeed a LGPL violation, I think it's a shame for the debian project to
>put it into its distribution.
>
>Regards,
>rigel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-chinese-gb-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
| This message was re-posted from debian-chinese-gb@lists.debian.org
| and converted from gb2312 to big5 by an automatic gateway.
Reply to: