On 2001.12.15 13:33 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Patrik Stridvall ps@leissner.se writes:
Even according to a strict interpretation of the LGPL they would just have to provide their code in seperate files so everything could be relinked when new versions of Wine was released.
It seems you really don't understand the LGPL. Modifications made to a library released under the LGPL are a derivative work of this library, and have to be LGPL no matter if they are in separate files or not. This is the standard interpretation that just about anybody except you agrees with.
Read it again.
Any modifications to existing code, yes. This is why I like the LGPL. However, if someone is reimplementing a portion from scratch they could make a successfull argument that their portion of the overall DLL was a seperate library and the LGPL /DOES/ state that you can link an LGPL library and your own library to form another library.
The crypto part of ADVAPI32 was the example I used. Let's say I were to write a CryptoAPI implementation as a set of seperate source files. With the LGPL I could compile all of that stuff and refer to it as a library. What is a library? I would say one or more object files linked together form a library. I could then take my CryptoAPI library, link it with the rest of Wine's ADVAPI32 and distribute a libadvapi32.so that could be dropped into a wine install.
Of course the LGPL states I would also at the very least have to provide at least binaries of my portion independently so that the end-user could take my library and link it with a newer version of Wine's ADVAPI32. This is why I think the LGPL is advantageous. Instead of being locked in to using the libadvapi32.so as distributed by me which could happen with the X11 license, with the LGPL license I must keep it in a seperate object file such that the parts of it that are LGPL can be updated. This is a Good Thing.
I am honestly all for the LGPL on Wine's codebase. I disagree with Patrick saying that it offers us no protection or what he refers to as very minimal protection. I think the scenario I listed above is a very important one and illustrates exactly what the LGPL is supposed to accomplish. However, according to Patrick this is very little protection so why not keep it X11 license and thus avoid the deterrence that the LGPL might be to some people.
NOTE Patrick: Consider this to be my reply to your message. The only thing we are arguing is that you consider this to be weak, while I consider it to be at least a little more protection that we currently have. At least it prevents people from taking what we have already done and forces them to reimplement if they don't want to play by the LGPL rules.
Also note that I am only trying to point out, like you are, that the LGPL is not a whole lot of protection. But the little protection it does provide is very profound.
I suppose if we want the definitive answer on this then someone ought to ask the FSF about it.
-Dave