Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Apache's LGPL Policy
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:15:41 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <59278FC0C48A994BABABD069571E45680BA7B691@orsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com>
Thread-Topic: Apache's LGPL Policy
Thread-Index: AcWY+8o+SuPzoQ+AQB2dxo52CTn+owAIEx/gAABw66A=
From: "Dittert, Eric" <eric.dittert@intel.com>
To: <legal-discuss@apache.org>


(Note: Switched back to original thread topic, since this is about LGPL,
not current Apache policy.)

From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:52 AM
>
>Justin,
>   As I describe below, I'm fuzzy on a couple of things and maybe this
list
>can help.
>
>Here's the Use Case:
>
>=3DUSE CASE: a "Program" that is distributed "In Isolation".
>=3D
>=3D<snip>
>=3D
>=3DAssertion
>=3D- --------------
>=3D- -->The Program can be distributed In Isolation without any
restrictions.
>=3D
>=3DThis is obviously the case for a Program that contains nothing
>=3Dderivative of any portion of the Library and would, therefore, fall
>=3Doutside the scope of the LGPL (as pointed out in the first paragraph
>=3Dof Section 5).
>
>Here's where I lose the reasoning.  If I understand the FSF correctly,
if I
>write a program that is designed to be linked to a GPL program, it is a
>derivative work of that GPL program whether or not I actually do the
>linking before I distribute my program.  So, if my licensee dynamically
or
>statically links the GPL program to mine as part of the normal use of
the
>program, I have obligations under the GPL.  Is that still the FSF
position?
>
>
>If so, then the only way that I can see that happening is the
information
>that I used on the interfaces to the GPL program is the "work" that I
made
>a derivative of, apparently even if it is a published interface
independent
>of the GPL program at issue.  That seems strange to me, but taken at
face
>value, and applying that to this use case, wouldn't any program written
to
>subclass the LGPL java classes also be a derivative work?  So, the
phrase
>"This is obviously the case for a Program that contains nothing
derivative
>of any portion of the Library" describes a null set (accepting the FSF
>position on derivatives).

If the FSF position with respect to the LGPL is as you state, then the
definition of "work that uses the Library" in section 5 of the LGPL
becomes a distinction without any meaning.  The definition at the
beginning of section 5 of the LGPL reads as follows:

<QUOTE>
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but
is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with
it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation,
is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the
scope of this License.
</QUOTE>

I am not familiar with what the FSF has said about code written to work
with a GPL library and IANAL, but the intent here seems clearly to
distinguish between source code that simply contains references to the
library, and the product of subsequent compilation and/or linking,
especially since the next paragraph in the LGPL contains this:

<QUOTE>
However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates
an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains
portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library".
</QUOTE>

-- Eric


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org