Board index » kylix » Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)


2003-08-14 01:13:17 AM
kylix1
"Johannes Berg" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
You might want to look up the (commonly used) definition of Public Domain.
There's no way LGPL is even close to PD, or even the BSD license.
As I said, it obviously contains a lot more verbiage than a simple public
domain statement.
But in terms of conditions that can be legally or practically enforced when
applied to a software library as intended, all that extra verbiage contains
very little of substance IMO.
 
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:13:17 -0400, JQP wrote:
Quote
But in terms of conditions that can be legally or practically enforced when
applied to a software library as intended, all that extra verbiage contains
very little of substance IMO.
Then I hope you'll never be dragged to court because you used LGPL'ed /
MPL'ed software for something that was illegal. And it surely is illegal
to use modified versions of software like that in commercial projects.
johannes
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

"Johannes Berg" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Then I hope you'll never be dragged to court because you used LGPL'ed /
MPL'ed software for something that was illegal. And it surely is illegal
to use modified versions of software like that in commercial projects.
In the case of the LGPL, library routines can be easily changed, replaced or
re-written without ever altering the library itself.
Without the application's source code, proving conclusively that a given
library was indeed modified would be very difficult if not impossible.
Never mind the difficult and time consuming job of trying to spot possible
alterations.
In practical terms, the author might as well make the library public domain
and be done with it.
 

{smallsort}