Hi. I'm that David Turner who is quoted. I'm not the David Turner who works for Microsoft, and I do not hack on Freetype.
First, I'm upset that CowboyNeal didn't contact me -- as the article says, I work at the Free Software Foundation, and you can find our phone number on our web page by searching for "s" on Google and clicking "I Feel Lucky."
Now, if you read section 6 of the LGPL, it's not the same hereditary [1] thing as section 2 of the GPL -- what it says is that your program, which links against th
I apologise for fudging the issue somewhat (i.e. not explaining what "considerable GNU-ness" means) in order to make the post sensationalised enough for Slashdot to post. I cite the greater good that this will hopefully increase awareness of the obligations created under the LGPL.
Most people believe that using an LGPL library does not place any additional obligations on the person using it, so long as they don't modify the library itself. Section 6 contradicts that popular belief. Similarly, people might q
I cite the greater good that this will hopefully increase awareness of the obligations created under the LGPL.
Instead, you have confused the issue further.
Most people believe that using an LGPL library does not place any additional obligations on the person using it, so long as they don't modify the library itself. Section 6 contradicts that popular belief.
I agree that this is a common false belief. However, Section 6 is far from secret, and anyone who distributes software should read the license be
Oh, wait, now I actually read your post, and realize that you are still completely confused. Sorry.
Let me make it clear: Section 6 is not what you think it is.
You think section 6 says:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that links to the Library, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Section 6 actually says:...distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
Note that this does not require the provision of source code, nor does it require allowing the original program or modifications thereof to be distributed.
Does this mean we can't obfuscate the java bytecode to prevent decompilation ?
Or does this just mean that the proprietary software using the LGPL library must not forbid modifications of itself to its user (as fair use) but it does not need to make them easy.
Does this mean we can't obfuscate the java bytecode to prevent decompilation ?
Or does this just mean that the proprietary software using the LGPL library must not forbid modifications of itself to its user (as fair use) but it does not need to make them easy.
So Section 6 is kind of an anti-DMCA, 'you have permission to reverse engineer this but we don't have to help you' clause?
Sound to me like Section 6 is just reenforcing the fairness in software competition that has always existed... before the DMCA anyway.
It isn't easy being the parent of a six-year-old. However, it's a pretty small
price to pay for having somebody around the house who understands computers.
Yes, that David Turner (Score:5, Informative)
First, I'm upset that CowboyNeal didn't contact me -- as the article says, I work at the Free Software Foundation, and you can find our phone number on our web page by searching for "s" on Google and clicking "I Feel Lucky."
Now, if you read section 6 of the LGPL, it's not the same hereditary [1] thing as section 2 of the GPL -- what it says is that your program, which links against th
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:2)
Most people believe that using an LGPL library does not place any additional obligations on the person using it, so long as they don't modify the library itself. Section 6 contradicts that popular belief. Similarly, people might q
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:4, Informative)
I cite the greater good that this will hopefully increase awareness of the obligations created under the LGPL.
Instead, you have confused the issue further.
Most people believe that using an LGPL library does not place any additional obligations on the person using it, so long as they don't modify the library itself. Section 6 contradicts that popular belief.
I agree that this is a common false belief. However, Section 6 is far from secret, and anyone who distributes software should read the license be
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:5, Informative)
Let me make it clear: Section 6 is not what you think it is.
You think section 6 says:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that links to the Library, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Section 6 actually says:
Note that this does not require the provision of source code, nor does it require allowing the original program or modifications thereof to be distributed.
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:3, Funny)
The LGPL isn't the GPL. If you want the GPL, you know where to find it.
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:1)
Or does this just mean that the proprietary software using the LGPL library must not forbid modifications of itself to its user (as fair use) but it does not need to make them easy.
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:2)
Or does this just mean that the proprietary software using the LGPL library must not forbid modifications of itself to its user (as fair use) but it does not need to make them easy.
The latter.
Re:Yes, that David Turner (Score:1)
Sound to me like Section 6 is just reenforcing the fairness in software competition that has always existed... before the DMCA anyway.