[Interest] Licensing Questions
alexander golks
alex at golks.de
Wed Apr 2 13:17:56 CEST 2014
there were some discussions on this topic several times now, i feel free to just repost some mails on this in Qt-interest Digest, Vol 19, Issue 20.
Today's Topics:
2. Re: Licensing (Jan)
3. Re: Licensing (Jeroen De Wachter)
4. Re: Licensing (Kustaa Nyholm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:49:29 +0200
From: Jan <janusius at gmx.net>
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Licensing
To: qt-interest at trolltech.com
Message-ID: <4C065359.70201 at gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Static vs. dynamic was discussed here as well
A response from nokia was posted by thiago:
http://lists.trolltech.com/pipermail/qt-interest/2009-December/016090.html
In short: There is no clear Yes or No. But they suggest to use dynamic
linking with LGPL'd Qt.
Jan
Am 02.06.2010 14:39, schrieb Kustaa Nyholm:
>>
>> this nice gpl,lgpl and commercial discussions...
>> i repeat a statement already mentioned in this thread:
>> don't trust anyone telling you something about how to behave concerning law
>> just trust your paid lawyer.
>
> Well, listening to a lawyer is good, but most lawyers don't pay the bill
> and suffer the consequences if the court decided against you in a dispute.
> So in the end it is down to the organization or individual to decide
> what to trust and what not to trust.
>> AS LONG AS you link dynamically to all lgpl code.
>
>
> Dynamic or static linking is no issue here, LGPL allows both.
>
> Section 6 applies to what has been discussed here ie LGPL library and closed
> source application delivered as an executable.
>
> There it says (6a) that if you distribute statically linked application
> you also need to distribute it in un-linked form so that the user
> can (re)link it with a modified (improved or different) version
> of the library, if they want. And 6c says that you don't even
> have to distribute the un-linked form, it is enough if you
> promise to deliver it on request.
>
> 6b refers to dynamic linking allowing distribution of the library alongside
> with a dynamically linked application code, but it is worth noting that
> section 5 clearly spells out that an application compiled against the
> library falls outside the scope of the license and thus there is nothing in
> the LGPL license to stop distribution of dynamically linked application code
> in any shape or form as long as it does not contain the library.
>
> Worth noting is that the last two paragraphs of the section 6 require the
> distribution of the tools and libraries required to (re)link the application
> unless they are normally distributed with the OS.
>
> This may cause problems if you use libraries or tools that do not allow
> redistribution. For example I don't think Windows comes with a linker
> so static linking might require you to distribute the linker which
> might not be possible if you use M$ tools. On the other hand if you
> use Free tools such as MinGW you might be able to evoke 6c on them.
>
> br Kusti
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-interest mailing list
> Qt-interest at trolltech.com
> http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:52:21 +0200
From: "Jeroen De Wachter" <jeroen.dewachter at barco.com>
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Licensing
To: "Jan" <janusius at gmx.net>
Cc: qt-interest at trolltech.com
Message-ID: <4C065405.50809 at barco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"
There's a whole thread on this mailing list regarding that subject
(Thiago's post was one message in a long list)
I was about to refer to it as well.
Kind regards,
Jeroen
Jan wrote:
> Static vs. dynamic was discussed here as well
> A response from nokia was posted by thiago:
>
> http://lists.trolltech.com/pipermail/qt-interest/2009-December/016090.html
>
> In short: There is no clear Yes or No. But they suggest to use dynamic
> linking with LGPL'd Qt.
>
> Jan
>
> Am 02.06.2010 14:39, schrieb Kustaa Nyholm:
>
>>> this nice gpl,lgpl and commercial discussions...
>>> i repeat a statement already mentioned in this thread:
>>> don't trust anyone telling you something about how to behave concerning law
>>> just trust your paid lawyer.
>>>
>> Well, listening to a lawyer is good, but most lawyers don't pay the bill
>> and suffer the consequences if the court decided against you in a dispute.
>> So in the end it is down to the organization or individual to decide
>> what to trust and what not to trust.
>>
>>> AS LONG AS you link dynamically to all lgpl code.
>>>
>> Dynamic or static linking is no issue here, LGPL allows both.
>>
>> Section 6 applies to what has been discussed here ie LGPL library and closed
>> source application delivered as an executable.
>>
>> There it says (6a) that if you distribute statically linked application
>> you also need to distribute it in un-linked form so that the user
>> can (re)link it with a modified (improved or different) version
>> of the library, if they want. And 6c says that you don't even
>> have to distribute the un-linked form, it is enough if you
>> promise to deliver it on request.
>>
>> 6b refers to dynamic linking allowing distribution of the library alongside
>> with a dynamically linked application code, but it is worth noting that
>> section 5 clearly spells out that an application compiled against the
>> library falls outside the scope of the license and thus there is nothing in
>> the LGPL license to stop distribution of dynamically linked application code
>> in any shape or form as long as it does not contain the library.
>>
>> Worth noting is that the last two paragraphs of the section 6 require the
>> distribution of the tools and libraries required to (re)link the application
>> unless they are normally distributed with the OS.
>>
>> This may cause problems if you use libraries or tools that do not allow
>> redistribution. For example I don't think Windows comes with a linker
>> so static linking might require you to distribute the linker which
>> might not be possible if you use M$ tools. On the other hand if you
>> use Free tools such as MinGW you might be able to evoke 6c on them.
>>
>> br Kusti
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qt-interest mailing list
>> Qt-interest at trolltech.com
>> http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-interest mailing list
> Qt-interest at trolltech.com
> http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-interest
>
>
DISCLAIMER:
Unless indicated otherwise, the information contained in this message is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachments is strictly prohibited. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. Furthermore, the company does not warrant a proper and complete transmission of this information, nor does it accept liability for any delays. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the message. Thank you.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:15:22 +0300
From: Kustaa Nyholm <Kustaa.Nyholm at planmeca.com>
Subject: Re: [Qt-interest] Licensing
To: "qt-interest at trolltech.com" <qt-interest at trolltech.com>
Message-ID: <C82C341A.114DF%kustaa.nyholm at planmeca.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Static vs. dynamic was discussed here as well
> A response from nokia was posted by thiago:
>
> http://lists.trolltech.com/pipermail/qt-interest/2009-December/016090.html
>
Very interesting, thanks for the link and the benefit of the opinion of
legal counsel Cristina Hamley.
> In short: There is no clear Yes or No. But they suggest to use dynamic
> linking with LGPL'd Qt.
That [there is no clear yes or no] is probably right.
However I did not follow her reasoning why static linking is in dispute,
and I stand by my assessment that static linking of LGPL'd code is allowed.
But she is correct in stating that:
"Ultimately, however, this decision is one of risk and
the individual Qt user should make this decision based on the specific
circumstances relevant to his or her particular application."
But I did not quite get this sentence:
"Because the LGPL v. 2.1 source code obligations can
be enforced by any recipient of the application and LGPL-licensed library,
Nokia's position on this issue is not particularly relevant and is merely
one opinion among many."
Yes, I get that Nokias position may not be relevant if there is code
in Qt that has been contributed to it under LGPL and for which Nokia
does not have full copyright.
But how would any 'recipient' of an application enforce LGPL obligations in
an attempt to prohibit static linking?
How could the recipient ie licensee prohibit/prevent (even if LGPL
prohibited static linking, which I'm not conceding) the copyright holder
from allowing other forms of usage (static linking) of the application in a
way that contradicts the LGPL license?
A copyright holder that has contributed code under a misguided
interpretation of LGPL might try to enforce his/hers interpretation but not
the recipient of the software.
So, here we have a good example how helpful a lawyers opinion is likely to
be.
br Kusti
--
/*
* BOFH excuse #360:
*
* Your parity check is overdrawn and you're out of cache.
*/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/attachments/20140402/b877f8cd/attachment.sig>
More information about the Interest
mailing list