 |
|
|
|
Next: Accepted qtoctave 0.8.1+dfsg-2 (source amd64)
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Dec 16, 2006
Posts: 20
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:20 am
Post subject: FLTK License
Archived from groups: linux>debian>legal (more info?)
|
|
|
Hello list!
I'm sponsoring the libflkt2, but I've some troubles with
the FLTK licenses [included at the end of this message].
The "FLTK License, May 2001" is included in the proposed
libfltk2, and the "FLTK License, December 2001" is
already included in Debian, in libfltk1.1.
- It seems it to fail the "desert island" test
- Is it linkable to GPL programs?
I don't think so, because extra restrictions.
Note: "apt-cache rdepends libfltk1.1" gives a long list
of potential problems.
- old discussion on debian-legal (in 1998-1999) seems to
recommending linking GPL programs with fltk instead
of other libraries (with problematic licenses).
Note: I don't know the fltk licenses before 2001.
What do you thing?
What to do with existing packages?
ciao
cate
=== FLTK License, May 2001 ===
FLTK License
Ammended May 4, 2001
The following ammendments to the GNU Library General Public
License apply for the FLTK library:
1. Modifications to the FLTK configure script, config
header file, and makefiles by themselves to support
a specific platform do not constitute a modified or
derived work.
The authors do request that such modifications be
contributed to the FLTK project - send all
contributions to "fltk-bugs@fltk.org".
2. Widgets that are subclassed from FLTK widgets do not
constitute a derived work.
3. Static linking of applications and widgets to the
FLTK library does not constitute a derived work
and does not require the author to provide source
code for the application or widget, use the shared
FLTK libraries, or link their applications or
widgets against a user version of FLTK.
If the author links the application or widget to a
modified version of FLTK, then the changes to FLTK
must be provided under the terms in sections 1, 2,
and 4.
4. Authors that develop applications and widgets that
use FLTK must include the following statement in
their user documentation:
[program/widget] is based in part on the work of
the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org).
=== FLTK License, December 2001 ===
FLTK License
December 11, 2001
The FLTK library and included programs are provided under the terms
of the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL) with the following
exceptions:
1. Modifications to the FLTK configure script, config
header file, and makefiles by themselves to support
a specific platform do not constitute a modified or
derivative work.
The authors do request that such modifications be
contributed to the FLTK project - send all
contributions to "fltk-bugs@fltk.org".
2. Widgets that are subclassed from FLTK widgets do not
constitute a derivative work.
3. Static linking of applications and widgets to the
FLTK library does not constitute a derivative work
and does not require the author to provide source
code for the application or widget, use the shared
FLTK libraries, or link their applications or
widgets against a user-supplied version of FLTK.
If you link the application or widget to a modified
version of FLTK, then the changes to FLTK must be
provided under the terms of the LGPL in sections
1, 2, and 4.
4. You do not have to provide a copy of the FLTK license
with programs that are linked to the FLTK library, nor
do you have to identify the FLTK license in your
program or documentation as required by section 6
of the LGPL.
However, programs must still identify their use of FLTK.
The following example statement can be included in user
documentation to satisfy this requirement:
[program/widget] is based in part on the work of
the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org).
==== end of quote ====
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate.RemoveThis@debian.org> wrote: [...]
> - It seems it to fail the "desert island" test
This is not in itself a problem, but usually suggests it fails DFSG 1,
3, 5, 6 and/or 7 in some combination.
However, the FLTK License only *requests* contribution. It does not
require it, so I think it doesn't fail the test anyway.
> - Is it linkable to GPL programs?
> I don't think so, because extra restrictions.
What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual
exceptions, assuming that "identify their use of FLTK" is in the
LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1.
So I think libfltk2 and libfltk1.1 packages could meet the DFSG.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 24, 2009
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 +0000
MJ Ray <mjr.RemoveThis@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate.RemoveThis@debian.org> wrote: [...]
> > - It seems it to fail the "desert island" test
>
> This is not in itself a problem, but usually suggests it fails DFSG 1,
> 3, 5, 6 and/or 7 in some combination.
>
> However, the FLTK License only *requests* contribution. It does not
> require it, so I think it doesn't fail the test anyway.
>
> > - Is it linkable to GPL programs?
> > I don't think so, because extra restrictions.
>
> What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual
> exceptions, assuming that "identify their use of FLTK" is in the
> LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1.
>
> So I think libfltk2 and libfltk1.1 packages could meet the DFSG.
If I understand it well; the amendments of the LGPL are not removable
(it is not explicitly said to be removable so by default it is not).
But It seems then that this license might in fact be incompatible with
the LPGL. In particular it prevents to relicence FLTK under the pure GPL
which is normally allowed by the LGPL. Any derivative works of FLTK have
to be distributed with the additional permissions and that make it
incompatible with the GPL; because cannot distribute a derivative work
of FLTK + A ; where A is a GPL licensed software with the special
exceptions. You cannot grant the extra permissions to A but in the other
hand you are obliged to do it by the FLTK license.
To prevent such problems, when the FSF want to make additional
permissions; they explicit said that you can remove the special
exceptions; which avoid such problems. But it does not seems the case
here.
Anyway it seems that the license remains free but is confusing...
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:20 pm
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Olive <not0read0765.RemoveThis@yopmail.com> wrote:
> If I understand it well; the amendments of the LGPL are not removable
> (it is not explicitly said to be removable so by default it is not).
> But It seems then that this license might in fact be incompatible with
> the LPGL.
They appear to be additional permissions, so are GPL-compatible IMO.
> In particular it prevents to relicence FLTK under the pure GPL
> which is normally allowed by the LGPL.
Rather, it would be under the GPL plus additional permissions.
> Any derivative works of FLTK have
> to be distributed with the additional permissions and that [...]
I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional
permissions. Where is that requirement?
Confused,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 24, 2009
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:20 pm
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:56:51 +0000
MJ Ray <mjr.DeleteThis@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> Olive <not0read0765.DeleteThis@yopmail.com> wrote:
> > If I understand it well; the amendments of the LGPL are not
> > removable (it is not explicitly said to be removable so by default
> > it is not). But It seems then that this license might in fact be
> > incompatible with the LPGL.
>
> They appear to be additional permissions, so are GPL-compatible IMO.
>
> > In particular it prevents to relicence FLTK under the pure GPL
> > which is normally allowed by the LGPL.
>
> Rather, it would be under the GPL plus additional permissions.
>
> > Any derivative works of FLTK have
> > to be distributed with the additional permissions and that [...]
>
> I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional
> permissions. Where is that requirement?
To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a
copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all
the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the
following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The
additional permissions make part of the license.
Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the
additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change
the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find
this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give
extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove
the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs).
Moreover the LGPL sates:
[ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
you ]
This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative
works.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 12, 2005
Posts: 55
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:20 pm
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate.TakeThisOut@debian.org> writes:
> === FLTK License, May 2001 ===
> FLTK License
> Ammended May 4, 2001
>
> The following ammendments to the GNU Library General Public
> License apply for the FLTK library:
>
> 1. Modifications to the FLTK configure script, config
> header file, and makefiles by themselves to support
> a specific platform do not constitute a modified or
> derived work.
Do the copyright holders get to declare what is or is not a derived
work? I would expect that to be a matter of law, not to be defined in
the license terms.
> The authors do request that such modifications be
> contributed to the FLTK project - send all
> contributions to "fltk-bugs@fltk.org".
It's explicitly a request, so this doesn't impose an additional
restriction. Good.
> 2. Widgets that are subclassed from FLTK widgets do not
> constitute a derived work.
Ditto for re-defining the copyright law term "derived work".
> 3. Static linking of applications and widgets to the
> FLTK library does not constitute a derived work
> and does not require the author to provide source
> code for the application or widget, use the shared
> FLTK libraries, or link their applications or
> widgets against a user version of FLTK.
Ditto for re-defining the copyright law term "derived work".
> If the author links the application or widget to a
> modified version of FLTK, then the changes to FLTK
> must be provided under the terms in sections 1, 2,
> and 4.
Limiting the scope of the additional permission. Fine.
> 4. Authors that develop applications and widgets that
> use FLTK must include the following statement in
> their user documentation:
>
> [program/widget] is based in part on the work of
> the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org).
Imposing an additional restriction on top of what the LGPL requires,
AFAICT. If so, this clause makes the work non-free.
> === FLTK License, December 2001 ===
>
> FLTK License
> December 11, 2001
It seems that the above comments also apply to these terms.
--
\ "My girlfriend said to me in bed last night, 'You're a |
`\ pervert'. I said, 'That's a big word for a girl of nine'." —Emo |
_o__) Philips |
Ben Finney
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 25, 2009
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:20 pm
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:06 +1100
Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate RemoveThis @debian.org> writes:
>
> > === FLTK License, May 2001 ===
> > FLTK License
> > Ammended May 4, 2001
> >
> > The following ammendments to the GNU Library General Public
> > License apply for the FLTK library:
> >
> > 1. Modifications to the FLTK configure script, config
> > header file, and makefiles by themselves to support
> > a specific platform do not constitute a modified or
> > derived work.
>
> Do the copyright holders get to declare what is or is not a derived
> work? I would expect that to be a matter of law, not to be defined in
> the license terms.
The purpose of a provision such as this is to reduce uncertainty. It is
a representation by the licensor that it will not assert claims to
certain classes of modifications even if legal arguments could be made
that those modifications are derivative works.
<snip>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:20 am
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Olive <not0read0765.RemoveThis@yopmail.com> wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr.RemoveThis@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional
> > permissions. Where is that requirement?
>
> To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a
> copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all
> the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the
> following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The
> additional permissions make part of the license.
Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive?
> Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the
> additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change
> the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find
> this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give
> extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove
> the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs).
Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra
permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old
Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at
http://web.archive.org/web/20000301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosoph...icense-
Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just
a clarification?
> Moreover the LGPL sates:
>
> [ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
> or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
> you ]
>
> This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative
> works.
That text is from the preamble. The implementation is section 10,
which refers to "these terms and conditions" which I take to mean "the
terms of this Lesser General Public License" as used throughout the
LGPL and not LGPL+additional permissions. I feel that's clear.
It may be nice to have the additional phrasing used by FSF in later
years ("If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your
version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do
not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your
version.") but I don't think it's a requirement.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 24, 2009
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:20 am
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:42:17 +0000
MJ Ray <mjr.DeleteThis@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> Olive <not0read0765.DeleteThis@yopmail.com> wrote:
> > MJ Ray <mjr.DeleteThis@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > > I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the
> > > additional permissions. Where is that requirement?
> >
> > To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a
> > copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all
> > the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is
> > the following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL
> > license. The additional permissions make part of the license.
>
> Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive?
>
> > Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include
> > the additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot
> > change the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I
> > do not find this permission (I think this is the reason that when
> > the FSF give extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly
> > states you can remove the extra permission; otherwise the same
> > problem would occurs).
>
> Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra
> permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old
> Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at
> http://web.archive.org/web/20000301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosoph...icense-
>
> Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just
> a clarification?
>
> > Moreover the LGPL sates:
> >
> > [ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether
> > gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights
> > that we gave you ]
> >
> > This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to
> > derivative works.
>
> That text is from the preamble.
But the preample is part of the license. It can be used to interpret it.
> The implementation is section 10,
> which refers to "these terms and conditions" which I take to mean "the
> terms of this Lesser General Public License" as used throughout the
> LGPL and not LGPL+additional permissions. I feel that's clear.
That was the intention of the author of the LGPL since the intention
was to not to add something to the LGPL. But with the modification on
top of the license, this is not clear at all anymore. I do not see why
these extra permission would not make not part of the license. They are
in the license file of FLTK.
Note that it is a personal analysis. You may be right also. But I think
the situation is somewhat confusing.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 25, 2009
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In message <49c9a819.RvF2V61XchuVG7vU%mjr@phonecoop.coop>, MJ Ray
<mjr.TakeThisOut@phonecoop.coop> writes
>Olive <not0read0765.TakeThisOut@yopmail.com> wrote:
>> MJ Ray <mjr.TakeThisOut@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
>> > I don't see why authors of derived works have to grant the additional
>> > permissions. Where is that requirement?
>>
>> To distribute derivative works you need a license (otherwise it is a
>> copyright infringement). The way it is presented is not you have all
>> the right from the LGPL + additional permission but the license is the
>> following FLTK license which consists of a modified LGPL license. The
>> additional permissions make part of the license.
>
>Sorry, but I currently disagree with that view. Who is Olive?
>
>> Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the
>> additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change
>> the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find
>> this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give
>> extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove
>> the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs).
>
>Sometimes FSF software did not state that you can remove the extra
>permission, such as libgcj's licence of March 7, 2000, or the old
>Qt exception suggestion which can be seen at
>http://web.archive.org/web/20000301061029/http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html
>
>Does anyone know that the removal statement was required and not just
>a clarification?
The FSF may be unusual in saying you can remove extra permissions.
Normally you can't relicence someone else's code.
But if you licence your added code WITHOUT the extra permissions, then
you have effectively removed those permissions from the entire work. To
get those permissions back, a recipient would have to strip your code
from the work.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony.TakeThisOut@thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 25, 2009
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In message <20090324232043.2789e3a1 DeleteThis @pcolivier.chezmoi.net>, Olive
<not0read0765 DeleteThis @yopmail.com> writes
>Any derivative work is covered by the FLTK license and that include the
>additional permissions. It is my understanding that you cannot change
>the license at all unless it is explicitly permitted and I do not find
>this permission (I think this is the reason that when the FSF give
>extra permission, as it sometimes do, it clearly states you can remove
>the extra permission; otherwise the same problem would occurs).
Correct - you can't change the permissions on the work THAT WAS LICENCED
TO YOU unless you are given permission (which is *very* *rarely* done)
If the FLTK demands that you use the FLTK for your own work, then that
is unusual, and certainly demanding far more than the GPL (see below).
>
>Moreover the LGPL sates:
>
>[ For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
>or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
>you ]
>
>This clearly suggests you must give the extra permissions to derivative
>works.
I'm not at all sure it does. Think about mixing LGPL and GPL code. The
resulting work has (effectively) had its LGPL rights stripped. But
there's nothing preventing the recipient separating the GPL and LGPL
parts and using each according to its licence.
If, however, the FLTK does explicity require you to give the extra
permissions, then it is GPL (and LGPL?) incompatible.
Look at this way. The GPL *DOES* *NOT* *EVER* make you licence your code
under the GPL, even if you mix it with someone else's GPL code and
distribute it. What it does is require you to licence your code under a
GPL-compatible licence, which guarantees to the recipient that they can
*safely* treat the entire work *AS* *IF* it were GPL-licenced.
What is the FLTK trying to achieve? The guarantee provided by the GPL is
that, as a recipient, you do not need to care what the licence is on the
individual bits. If ANY of it is GPL, you can safely behave *as* *if*
*all* of it is GPL, even if it isn't.
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - anthony DeleteThis @thewolery.demon.co.uk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Francesco Poli <frx.RemoveThis@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:54:00 +0000 MJ Ray wrote:
> [...]
> > What extra restrictions? The exceptions looked like actual
> > exceptions, assuming that "identify their use of FLTK" is in the
> > LGPL-2.1... which it appears to be, in section 1.
>
> Could you please elaborate on this?
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Library's
complete source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that
you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice" and assuming that "an appropriate
copyright notice" does "identify their use of FLTK" sufficiently.
This then permeates the rest of the licence and the additional
permission to use section 6 without having to pass on the licence
doesn't change that requirement.
Hope that's right,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 12, 2005
Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate DeleteThis @debian.org> wrote in message
news:49C8DA6F.7050301@debian.org...
> 4. You do not have to provide a copy of the FLTK license
> with programs that are linked to the FLTK library, nor
> do you have to identify the FLTK license in your
> program or documentation as required by section 6
> of the LGPL.
> However, programs must still identify their use of FLTK.
> The following example statement can be included in user
> documentation to satisfy this requirement:
>
> [program/widget] is based in part on the work of
> the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org).
The December version has the above statement. The inclusion of such a
statement appears to be a limitation on the the permission to omit the LGPL
licence text. Even if that is not a limitation on this new permission, in
this wording, the existing requirements of the LGPL to preserve copyright
notices appears equivlent.
Indeed all of the december licence appears to be additional permissions. It
would be preferable if it were clear if this is really just the GPL+special
exceptions, such that derivitives could remove the special exceptions. If it
is not intended to be such, the FSF would probably take issue with this
license
So, my thought are that the December version is free, being just
LGPL+additional permissions. I also tend to think it is fully GPL
compatible, although I would really prefer clarification on it being just
standard removable special exceptions.
Unfortunately the same is not true of the May version:
> 4. Authors that develop applications and widgets that
> use FLTK must include the following statement in
> their user documentation:
>
> [program/widget] is based in part on the work of
> the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org).
>
That requirement is free, but makes this GPL-incompatible. This also appears
to be an abuse of the LGPL, which should never have additional restrictions
attached to it.
Reccomendation: Check with upstream to see if the December version applies
to libfltk2. If so, that is good. If not, try to convince them to update it
to use the new license or preferably, an even newer version of the license
that uses the standard special exception terms.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 148
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:20 pm
Post subject: Re: FLTK License [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Francesco Poli <frx.RemoveThis@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> As Joe Smith has just explained in more detail, one of the two license
> versions includes a more specific requirement to embed a verbatim
> sentence in user documentation: I cannot find any such restriction in
> the GNU LGPL v2.1...
I was looking at the December 2001 version mainly. The May 2001
version may be broken, but it's not clear to me. I'll cc this to the
given bugs address to ask if the fltk team would update fltk 2.0 to
the December 2001 version of the FLTK licence.
fltk-bugs, how about it?
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Instead of GPL License - Why not LKL? (Linux Kernel License) - I've been somewhat following the GPL2 vs. GPL3 debate and the problem is that it leads to confusion. GPL3 is nothing..
PHP License 3.0 (was: oh) - -------------------------------------------------------------------- The PHP License, version 3.0..
License violation? - Hi. I have a GPL driver (written by me) with workarounds, since I hadn't know-how, when I wrote it. Now I've got 2.4....
RHEL 4 License - Hello, i need to format my RHEL4 server but i dont remember the key of the license how can i get it back and so i can....
RHEL License - Hi, is there any way to check the license number that is associated with my server? I have x server and on..
Open Publication License - http://www.debian.org/license refers to http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/, but it's no longer available. At.. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Linux