lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: bitkeeper
Steven Roberts wrote:
>
> "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" wrote:
> > dlang@diginsite.com (David Lang) writes:
> >
> > >correct me if I am wrong about the QT licence, but isn't it still free,
> > >they just refuse to put the GPL on it to give it's being free more power
> > >then their statement " we are going to continue to have this free"
> >
> > Putting the GPL on it actually removes freedom from it.
> >
> > At least to me it would mean that I can no longer use qt to link to my
> > commercial programs (Linking commercial code to GPL code means that
> > the commercial code is put under GPL).
> >
> > LGPL would be acceptable but not GPL. This is a _fundamental_
> > difference.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Henning
>
> Of course the LGPL has a big problem in itself (at least last time I
> looked, which was a year ago). The problem is with the using clauses.
> They are unclear on one area of code I do a lot of.
>
> I code in C++. As such I have a lot on inline functions (for speed/code
> size) defined in header files. So if I have a library that consists of
> all inline code (say a C++ template based library). An application
> program that uses it would be compiling the code, not just using it.
>
> Maybe this issue has been cleared up in a revision of the LGPL that I
> haven't seen yet, and if so please correct me. I am developing a suite
> of C++ libraries for linux/Win32 that I currently have a fairly open
> license on. I looked into using the LGPL for it, but I scared enough
> bussiness lawyers when I showed them the LGPL that I decided against it.
>
> I can't make the applications themselves GPL because various bosses
> would shoot me if I made the code that contained nifty little secret
> algos public.
>
> Regards,
> Steven Roberts
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

This is one of the major problems with the LGPL. It was written before
the days of inline functions and object-oriented programming (not to
mention CORBA....). Basically, the LGPL is 100% vague in these cases.
In my opinion, a new version is needed _now_ to address these
significant issues.

OO licensing is messy, and I can't competently comment on it. Header
files are also messy. In fact, the problem of header inclusion is a
major stumbling block even for plain old C code (header inclusion really
isn't linking)! Perhaps the license could explicitly allow inclusions
of header files containing only function declarations, typedefs,
variable definitions, inline functions, template functions, class
declarations, template classes, constant declarations etc. On the other
hand, ick.

Bye (too grossed out to continue).

David Feuer
feuer at his dot com

--

Remove "NOSPAM" to reply.
______________________________
/ David Feuer \
| dfeuer@NOSPAMbinx.mbhs.edu |
| feuer@NOSPAMhis.com |
| daf@morseNOSPAM.usno.navy.mil|
\ david@NOSPAMfeuer.his.com /
-----------------------------

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.074 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site