🚀 go-pugleaf

) Return-Path: <uunet!thunder.McRCIM.McGill.EDU!leei>
) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 09:29:22 -0500
) From: Lee Iverson  <uunet!thunder.McRCIM.McGill.EDU!leei>
) To: don@zardoz.coral.com
) Subject: Re: Reverse engineering and LGPL
) Newsgroups: gnu.g++.help,comp.lang.c++
) In-Reply-To: <9101161300.AA22325@zardoz.coral.com>
) References: <1918@fornax.UUCP>
) Organization: McGill University, McRCIM
) Cc: 
) 
) >) 
) >) I think that the library licence and the gnu license should say only
) >) this:
) >)      The programs and library protected with the GNU license must remain
) >)      publicly available, but you may include it in a derived work and limit
) >)      the distribution of the derived work.
) >) 
) >
) >This makes alot of sense.  My company has used g++ to develop a large
) >product and currently we include the g++ library.  We only use the
) >objects out of libg++ that are absolutely necessary, such as cout,
) >which we only use for debugging.
) >
) >Before we ship our product, we will have to replace the gnu library
) >with something of our own, because we can't give our sources to our
) >customers to hack. 
) 
) READ!! the newest version of the LGPL.  It makes it abundantly clear
) that all you are required to do is provide a version of your
) proprietary object code which the user could relink with an upgraded
) libg++.  You must provide (if only on request) source for libg++, but
) not necessarily your own stuff.  This problem is exactly what the NEW
) LGPL should cover and properly.  Get a copy (from prep.ai.mit.edu or
) rms) and READ it!  The fact that you want to use it and are associated
) with a startup should be enough to encourage you to work for FSF
) principles and that should not include uninformed diatribes which
) don't reflect an attempt to understand where the project is going.
) 
) Try again.  If you look, I think you'll be surprised and happy.  It
) may not be exactly what you want but it should allow you to do exactly
) what you need to do.
) 
) -- 
) 
) Lee Iverson			McGill Research Centre for Intelligent Machines
) leei@mcrcim.mcgill.edu		Computer Vision and Robotics Lab
) 				McGill University, Montreal
) 
) 


I must admit I have read it.  Abundantly clear?  I found very little
about it clear.  In fact, four of us at this company went about
arguing this exact point for a while.  Is this the correct
interpertation?  If so, I most profusely apologize for an feathers I
may have ruffled.  Would anybody care to comment further?


  +---------+
  | Coral   |
  |@@@@@*@**|
  |@@*@@**@@|     Don Dewar
  |*@@**@@@@|     Coral Network Corporation, Marlborough, MA
  |@***@@@@@|     Internet: don@coral.com
  |@@**@@@@@|     Phone:    (508) 460-6010
  |*********|     Fax:      (508) 481-6258
  |Networks |
  +---------+