Re: [larsbj@ifi.uio.no: Re: copyright problem]
>> > > I agree that by using XForms in development, and XForms *is* needed to
>> > > compile and run LyX, we have implicitly allowd all users to link Lyx
>> > > with XForms.
>> > > [...]
>> >
>> > I don't think so. It is not enough for KDE, why should it be enough for
>> > LyX ?
>>
>> It's not enough for KDE because KDE includes things not written by the KDE
>> people.
>
>How can we be sure that LyX does not include things not written by them?
>And anyway we're not given permission to distribute it.
Surely if a piece of software is released under a particular license
agreement and if you contribute some source code to the maintainer of the
software for inclusion in that software then the same license conditions must
implicitely apply. If a piece of software is GPL then you can't give some
source code to the maintainer and then say "lines 10-20 of file foo.c are
commercial and al users must pay me". If things were otherwise then all
current GPL projects would be void and all new ones would require written
statements explicitely agreeing to the license conditions.
Changing a license from one that implies something (may be linked to Xforms)
to one which states it directly and clearly is not altering the license
conditions merely clarifying them. So my opinion is that the main developers
in the LyX project can get together and change the license in this fashion
after a quick vote without any problems.
Of course I'm not a lawyer and even a lawyers opinion won't mean that much
unless a magistrate agrees...
--
Got no future, got no past.
Here today, built to last.
Reply to: