Re: Three problems with Chinput
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
Reply to: