On Mon, 16 May 2005 00:52:36 +1000
Colin Carter
On Monday 16 May 2005 00:12, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:45:27 +1000
Colin Carter
wrote: Thank you for your info, and for the web site reference. I interpret those docs as saying that if I write, say a word processor, using these Motif routines then I must give away all of my code as Open Source. In the case of Qt I can purchase a copy and write my own code without having to disclose my source code. But X11 and Xt are simply free.
I have not read the license. In general, if a library you use is GPL (or similar) your code will be infected and is OpenSource, but if you use the LGPL license, your code is not OpenSource. Hi Jerry, I had a look at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html and got the impression that if I used this code (eg Open Motif) then I would be able to sell my word processor but I would have to give away the code and then anybody could compete with me by selling my product which I spent hours into the night developing.
Quote: When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
We call this license the "Lesser" General Public License because it does Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public License. It also provides other free software developers Less of an advantage over competing non-free programs. These disadvantages are the reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries. However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special circumstances. End Quote.
But if I use M$ software then my product is mine. If it is always going to be that way then why "bust your guts" trying to achieve something if you have to give it away. Sorry, but if this is to be the official line for Linux then it is doomed to stay at the guru or amateur level. How do the owners of Qt get away with charging for their software and keeping their source code secret?
When I read the GNU licence statements they all go around in circles arguing the advantages of open software without actually stating anything except that everybody has the right to the source code and everybody can charge a fee and distribute everything, even the code they didn't put any effort into. Sure SuSE cover their back side by saying that proprietary software cannot be distributed, but who actually knows which parts of the DVD are proprietary? They don't exactly supply a list.
The GNU LGPL license allows you to build a proprietary product. This is
why we have both the GPL and the LGPL. We have plenty of good
proprietary products on Linux. Additionally, XT has nothing to do with
Linux other than you can use Linux to build and run a derivative
product. GPL would require that you release your code as OpenSource,
but the LGPL and some other licenses do not have this requirement. I
think you will find the GNU LIBC and other system libraries and header
files on Linux licensed the same way (eg. LGPL).
BTW: It used to be that if you built your code on a Windows system
using Borland, Microsoft, or some other C language systems a few years
ago, you would have been liable to pay them a royalty.
--
Jerry Feldman