Re: FLTK License
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:42:17 +0000
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> 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.
But the preample is part of the license. It can be used to interpret it.
> 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.
That was the intention of the author of the LGPL since the intention
was to not to add something to the LGPL. But with the modification on
top of the license, this is not clear at all anymore. I do not see why
these extra permission would not make not part of the license. They are
in the license file of FLTK.
Note that it is a personal analysis. You may be right also. But I think
the situation is somewhat confusing.
Olive
Reply to: