Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > > > Section 3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
> > > > General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of
> > > > the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer
> > > > to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General
> > > > Public License, version 2 instead of to this License. (If a newer
> > > > version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License
> > > > has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you
> > > > wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices.
> > > >
> > > > Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for
> > > > that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to
> > > > all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.
> > > >
> > > > This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of
> > > > the Library into a program that is not a library.
> > > >
> > > > Now, let's look at it sentence by sentence, so even I can comprehend it.
>
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Excuse me.
> > >
> > > Your "sentence by sentence" treatment managed to completely ignore that
> > > third paragraph of section 3.
>
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 08:31:42PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Well, it's clearly not a requirement, it's a suggestion/commentary,
> > so not especially relevant in determining one's obligations under the
> > LGPL.
>
> I disagree with your suggestion that it's not relevant.
>
> I'd even go so far as to say that commentary which is included in the
> license is more relevant than what you or I have to say.
>
> > > What do you think it means?
> >
> > Let's see, I think it suggests that you might want to do this
> > "irreversible" conversion if "you wish to copy part of the code of the
> > Library into a program that is not a library."
>
> Ok.
>
> > I also think it suggests that the authors of the LGPL did not agree
> > with the interpretation that requires the "complete source code" to
> > be licensed under the GPL (esp. when considered with the preamble
> > language which states "in a textual and legal sense, the linked
> > executable is a combined work, a derivative of the original library,
> > and the ordinary General Public License treats it as such", which does
> > signal the belief that the "complete source code" for purposes of
> > Section 3(a) of the GPL would include the library), though I would not
> > rely on one license to interpret a different one.
> >
> > I suppose that since you think I "ignored" this suggestive sentence
> > that you think somehow it changes the meaning of the preceding
> > paragraphs?
>
> I think it points at a flaw in what you've been stating.
But of course you do :-).
> You've been implying that the irreversible change mentioned in Section
> 3 is a requirement for cases where libc is used as a Library.
Well, it seems you misquoting me is becoming an annoying
ritual. What I
said is that under the interpretation -- an interpretation
that obviously
is not mine -- that Section 3(a)/Section 2(b) of the GPL
require the
"complete source code" -- including library source code
(like qt) -- to
be licensed under the GPL, libc would have to be licensed
under the GPL.
The next step in the reasoning is that if libc has to be
licensed under
the GPL, you have to go through the Section 3 (LGPL)
conversion.
>
> But this third paragraph clearly indicates that Section 3 is optional.
> That the use of Section 3 is for cases where the code (for example, the
> lgpled libc code) would not be not used as a library.
It's just an example. Anyway, I don't think libc has to be
licensed
under the GPL when linked with a GPL Program, for the very
same reason
I don't think Qt has to be licensed under the GPL when
linked with a
GPL Program.
> [For that matter,
> the first sentence of the first paragraph also clearly indicates that
> Section 3 is optional, but the third paragraph has the advantage of
> showing why the option is available.]
>
> To use a phrasing similar to what you've been using in other contexts:
> a Library need not be a Program.
Good. So you now agree that the "complete source code" of
Section 3(a)
of the GPL does not have to be licensed under the GPL. But
no, of course
you don't.
What I find fascinating is that after all these e-mails
debating with
you, I really don't know what you think. And that, my
friend, means I
really should not be debating with you anymore.
Ciao,
Andreas
Reply to: