Re: Move to LGPL3

[Mark Mielke <mark mark mielke cc>]

Mark Mielke wrote:
> If I choose to download Oracle, and connect a GPL product to Oracle 
> *without redistribution*, there is nothing the FSF can do to stop me.

I should qualify - I went down a path I thought Dominic was leading but 
away from the Gtk topic. The above is grey in terms of whether it 
applies to Gtk. It comes down to whether use of a published interface 
constitutes creating a derived work, and whether a license can 
reasonable prevent the use of one component to be used with another. 
Imagine you were given a brand new BWM on the condition that you cannot 
use anything but BWM parts in it. You take the BWM, and ignore the 
agreement. In a court of law, would the court system truly require you 
to give the BWM back? I doubt it. They would laugh at your accuser. Not 
all agreements are binding in a court of law. In Canada (not sure about 
the US), even a signature on a document is not legally binding (although 
it may influence the judge). This is pretty grey and goes to my previous 
post.

Suffice it to say that nearly everyone posted thus far (probably 
including me) is likely to be incorrect unless by accident. Even 
referring to wording of the license or tables on the FSF web site that 
purport to declare compatibility are NOT conclusive, as these are 
opinions, and in the case of the FSF, they are opinions with an agenda. 
The GPL is not well tried in a court of law, and laws change from 
country to country.

That said, Gtk is using the GPL license, and the FSF should be 
accountable for problems they create through the publishing of licenses 
they author. The Gtk community representatives should be active in the 
community that is defining the LGPL3 (or GPL3 although this may be late) 
to ensure that the needs of the Gtk community are fulfilled. Walking in 
late as a "what does this mean to me? oh oh..." is somewhat 
irresponsible. :-) Sorry.

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke <mark mielke cc>