Re: FLTK License
Olive <not0read0765@yopmail.com> wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional
> > permissions. Where is that requirement?
>
> To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a
> copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all
> the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the
> following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The
> additional permissions make part of the license.
Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive?
> Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the
> additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change
> the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find
> this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give
> extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove
> the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs).
Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra
permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old
Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at
http://web.archive.org/web/20000301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just
a clarification?
> Moreover the LGPL sates:
>
> [ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
> or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
> you ]
>
> This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative
> works.
That text is from the preamble. The implementation is section 10,
which refers to "these terms and conditions" which I take to mean "the
terms of this Lesser General Public License" as used throughout the
LGPL and not LGPL+additional permissions. I feel that's clear.
It may be nice to have the additional phrasing used by FSF in later
years ("If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your
version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do
not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your
version.") but I don't think it's a requirement.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: