Patrik Stridvall ps@leissner.se writes:
So what you basicly saying is that a Crypto API that is a
part of ADVAPI32
can't call ADVAPI32 functions but a Crypto API in say CRYTPO32 can.
Isn't that quite an absurd state to make? Or rather the
perfect illustration
of the absurdities of LGPL.
No, I think it makes perfect sense. If your code is sufficiently independent that it can be put in a separate library, then the LGPL gives you the right to release it under another license. But in order to do that, you have to demonstrate that the code is really as independent as you claim it to be; and requiring you to put it in a separate library is the best way to ensure that.
Somehow I guess you would say that. OK, so now are down to independence.
So independence is an issue of whether something is on either side of an artifical barrier in this cases the DLL boundary?
Note that you your condition: "If your code is sufficiently independent that it can be put in a separate library" can always be fullfilled with a little trickery.
For example: void CryptFoo() { CRYPT32_CryptFoo(); }
and release the code above under the LGPL.
Note that we now return to the doctrine of derived work for nothing except for it can ever make this illegal.
You known, no matter how much you may disagree with the FSF or their license, they are not a bunch of idiots. They have been through this long before you, and have spent a lot of time (and lawyers) to make sure that it worked as they wanted. You can certainly find minor issues and border cases, but the LGPL is not the useless crap you seem to think it is.
They had a goal and I'm sure a lot of competent people did the best they could be accieve it.
However, you can do the impossible no matter how hard you try.
Patrik Stridvall ps@leissner.se writes:
For example: void CryptFoo() { CRYPT32_CryptFoo(); }
and release the code above under the LGPL.
That's the square root example. If you do that, you have to make sure that the use of CRYPT32_CryptFoo is optional and that the function still behaves properly if your CRYPT32 function is not available.
They had a goal and I'm sure a lot of competent people did the best they could be accieve it.
However, you can do the impossible no matter how hard you try.
Strangely there are thousands of people, including lawyers, who seem to think that the LGPL does what it claims to do. If the problems are so obvious, how come no one else sees them? Could it be that maybe, just maybe, it is because all these people are right and you are wrong?
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
They had a goal and I'm sure a lot of competent people did the best they could be accieve it.
However, you can do the impossible no matter how hard you try.
And this is precisely why your entire dissertation about the derived work doctrine is competely irrelevant for the current discussion.
Let me explain. People had an idea: the spirit of the LGPL (which I defined in earlier emails). A lot of bright and competent people tried to formalize it for the current body of laws. They came up with the LGPL. As such, allow me to consider the LGPL the best available license which formalized the above mentioned spirit.
Now, there are two possibilities. The laws allows one to license code under the LGPL spirit or they don't. We don't know. If they do, the LGPL is OK. If they don't, no other license would, so there's _no_point_ in bitching about the LGPL, because nothing else could do a better job!
In other words, if you're OK with the LGPL spirit, you can not do any better than going with the it. Period.
But, I hear you say, 'why change the license if it doesn't give you any protection?' Well, this is where your reasoning is flawed, because the LGPL gives you quite a bit of protection. And this is because there is at least a 50% chance that it is enforceable, and this is _good_enough_ in practice. This is trivial to see: the market place is littered with unenforceable EULAs, yet they seem to do the job. Why? Because big companies will have not desire whatsoever to test these licenses in court, since they have to much too loose (remember, big companies = have $$$), while small companies can build on a business plan based on such shaky grounds, as no one is going to fund such ventures. Add to this the immense public pressure, and you have Protection, with a capital P.
And just for shits and giggles, if you think _any_ license will give you absolute protection, you are sadly mistaken. And the reason this can not happen is rather simple: the laws change.
-- Dimi.
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:45:43 -0500, "Dimitrie O. Paun" dimi@cs.toronto.edu wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
They had a goal and I'm sure a lot of competent people did the best they could be accieve it.
However, you can do the impossible no matter how hard you try.
And this is precisely why your entire dissertation about the derived work doctrine is competely irrelevant for the current discussion.
Let me explain. People had an idea: the spirit of the LGPL (which I defined in earlier emails). A lot of bright and competent people tried to formalize it for the current body of laws. They came up with the LGPL. As such, allow me to consider the LGPL the best available license which formalized the above mentioned spirit.
Now, there are two possibilities. The laws allows one to license code under the LGPL spirit or they don't. We don't know. If they do, the LGPL is OK. If they don't, no other license would, so there's _no_point_ in bitching about the LGPL, because nothing else could do a better job!
In other words, if you're OK with the LGPL spirit, you can not do any better than going with the it. Period.
But, I hear you say, 'why change the license if it doesn't give you any protection?' Well, this is where your reasoning is flawed, because the LGPL gives you quite a bit of protection. And this is because there is at least a 50% chance that it is enforceable, and this is _good_enough_ in practice. This is trivial to see: the market place is littered with unenforceable EULAs, yet they seem to do the job. Why? Because big companies will have not desire whatsoever to test these licenses in court, since they have to much too loose (remember, big companies = have $$$), while small companies can build on a business plan based on such shaky grounds, as no one is going to fund such ventures. Add to this the immense public pressure, and you have Protection, with a capital P.
And just for shits and giggles, if you think _any_ license will give you absolute protection, you are sadly mistaken. And the reason this can not happen is rather simple: the laws change.
And some 10 years after formulation of the license there is no case law and no related statues. I contend there is unlikely to be any due to the lack of potential monetary damages. The worldwide nature of most open-source ventures further reduces the chance of anything definitive happening. It is a largely sociological phenomena.
john alvord
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
John Alvord -
Patrik Stridvall