5 ms·

RMS is complaining about Obfuscript. Speaking of obfuscation, I hope someone would deobfuscate LGPL for me.

by critic 18y ago

patio11 18y ago
I have always read LGPL as "Look for another piece of software which does this and save yourself some headaches."
- jrockway 18y ago
  Because you can link with it with absolutely no restrictions on the derived app? Yeah... that sucks...
  - critic 18y ago
    That's what they want you to believe. Try reading the license. You have to know how many lines from the header file you are "distributing" (in the GNU lingo). If you are using C++ templates, you are probably screwed. You have to make sure you link dynamically (or else). LGPL seems to require advertising the library. And if you want do static linking, talk to a lawyer. Linus and RMS disagree on what constitutes "derived work", btw. Edit: I'd like to know what motivated people to upmod parent, when it's factually incorrect and can cost developers dearly if they take the message at face value.
    - patio11 18y ago
      Exactly. I'm unwilling to pay the uncertainty tax. (Ironically, commercial software is often much easier to justify than the LGPL equivalent is! "Fork over $200 and you're OK" -- sweet, done! Spend a few hours reading legal code and still coming no closer to understanding whether a plugin in application A accessed over REST by application B is "linked" to A, B, A and B, or neither... bah.)
    - azanar 18y ago
      You are talking about Section 3 of the LGPL? IANAL, but this section seems pretty logically simple to me, and I think you are misreading it. If you read the terms, you are required to do either of the following: * a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. * b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document. How is needing to provide a mention of the LGPL'ed libraries and the fact that they are LGPL'ed in any way screwing you? You also have to provide a copy of the GPL and LGPL amended your own legalese. You are not required to distribute the source for the library, nor the source of your own application. I've seen several large commercial applications make mention of included libraries, some under the LGPL, and it has never bothered me, nor anyone else who purchased it. I understand that you want to be able to charge money for the software you write, but that you seem to perceive the LGPL as a threat to this ability seems excessively fear-mongery. I agree that anyone concerned about licensing terms should consult an attorney, but because you want to understand things better, not because you are fearful of software development turning socialist.
      - tlrobinson 18y ago
        Please add some line breaks in that quoted text.
        azanar 18y ago
        Fixed. :-)
      - critic 18y ago
        If, as you say, LGPL, is clear to you, what do you think "object code" refers to in the (b) clause you just quoted? How are the "ten lines" counted in the paragraph above (you didn't quote): separately or total? etc. etc.
        azanar 18y ago
        1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_code 2. I'd assume as lines are normally counted. The number of line-feeds and/or carriage returns in a file. I don't see what the big deal is anyway; if you are at all concerned, just include the license text. Is doing so that big a deal?
michaelneale 18y ago
It seems that GNU have kind of disowned the LGPL (maybe that is too strong a word) but they do everything they can to make you consider GPL over it.
- tsally 18y ago
  That's because the LGPL is only meant for very specific situations were licensing under the GPL would hurt the free software movement. This is hardly the ever the case (a notable exception would be a high quality library) and thus the encouragement for the GPL.
bmj 18y ago
Yeah, and I'm not sure I follow this (the Obfuscript bit). You _do_ have the source code, albeit a bit difficult to read. I'm guessing there are plenty of GPL'ed programs out there with horrible style and horrible documentation.
- jodrellblank 18y ago
  Difficult to read or not, there's not much point because you don't have the legal permission to change it, contribute to it, derive code from it, etc. We have the right to improve GPL'd programs with horrible documentation.
  - bmj 18y ago
    True enough.

RMS is complaining about Obfuscript. Speaking of obfuscation, I hope someone would deobfuscate LGPL for me.

by critic 18y ago

RMS is complaining about Obfuscript. Speaking of obfuscation, I hope someone would deobfuscate LGPL for me.

patio11 18y ago

I have always read LGPL as "Look for another piece of software which does this and save yourself some headaches."

jrockway 18y ago
Because you can link with it with absolutely no restrictions on the derived app? Yeah... that sucks...
- critic 18y ago
  That's what they want you to believe. Try reading the license. You have to know how many lines from the header file you are "distributing" (in the GNU lingo). If you are using C++ templates, you are probably screwed. You have to make sure you link dynamically (or else). LGPL seems to require advertising the library. And if you want do static linking, talk to a lawyer. Linus and RMS disagree on what constitutes "derived work", btw. Edit: I'd like to know what motivated people to upmod parent, when it's factually incorrect and can cost developers dearly if they take the message at face value.
  - patio11 18y ago
    Exactly. I'm unwilling to pay the uncertainty tax. (Ironically, commercial software is often much easier to justify than the LGPL equivalent is! "Fork over $200 and you're OK" -- sweet, done! Spend a few hours reading legal code and still coming no closer to understanding whether a plugin in application A accessed over REST by application B is "linked" to A, B, A and B, or neither... bah.)
  - azanar 18y ago
    You are talking about Section 3 of the LGPL? IANAL, but this section seems pretty logically simple to me, and I think you are misreading it. If you read the terms, you are required to do either of the following: * a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. * b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document. How is needing to provide a mention of the LGPL'ed libraries and the fact that they are LGPL'ed in any way screwing you? You also have to provide a copy of the GPL and LGPL amended your own legalese. You are not required to distribute the source for the library, nor the source of your own application. I've seen several large commercial applications make mention of included libraries, some under the LGPL, and it has never bothered me, nor anyone else who purchased it. I understand that you want to be able to charge money for the software you write, but that you seem to perceive the LGPL as a threat to this ability seems excessively fear-mongery. I agree that anyone concerned about licensing terms should consult an attorney, but because you want to understand things better, not because you are fearful of software development turning socialist.
    - tlrobinson 18y ago
      Please add some line breaks in that quoted text.
      - azanar 18y ago
        Fixed. :-)
    - critic 18y ago
      If, as you say, LGPL, is clear to you, what do you think "object code" refers to in the (b) clause you just quoted? How are the "ten lines" counted in the paragraph above (you didn't quote): separately or total? etc. etc.
      - azanar 18y ago
        1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_code 2. I'd assume as lines are normally counted. The number of line-feeds and/or carriage returns in a file. I don't see what the big deal is anyway; if you are at all concerned, just include the license text. Is doing so that big a deal?

michaelneale 18y ago

It seems that GNU have kind of disowned the LGPL (maybe that is too strong a word) but they do everything they can to make you consider GPL over it.

tsally 18y ago
That's because the LGPL is only meant for very specific situations were licensing under the GPL would hurt the free software movement. This is hardly the ever the case (a notable exception would be a high quality library) and thus the encouragement for the GPL.

bmj 18y ago

Yeah, and I'm not sure I follow this (the Obfuscript bit). You _do_ have the source code, albeit a bit difficult to read. I'm guessing there are plenty of GPL'ed programs out there with horrible style and horrible documentation.

jodrellblank 18y ago
Difficult to read or not, there's not much point because you don't have the legal permission to change it, contribute to it, derive code from it, etc. We have the right to improve GPL'd programs with horrible documentation.
- bmj 18y ago
  True enough.