[osflash] LGPL Licensing in actionscript

[Rob Bateman]

I think it would be really useful to have a flash version of the lgpl, as
the implications towards licensing such code are vague to say the least.

the problem seems to revolve around the interpretation of section 5 and 6 of
the license:


*5. 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. *

*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". The executable
is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for
distribution of such executables.*

*......*
*6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a
"work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing
portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your
choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the
customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
*

the first paragraph of section 5 seems to suggest that merly linking a
library to a 'work that uses the library' doesn't impose any licenses on the
program, but the very next paragraph seems to contradict this. the exception
in section 6 is unworkable for a flash project, so doesn't really provide an
alternative way of using the library.

IMHO i would discount LGPL altogether, and go for one of the better written
licenses such as apache or MPL, both of which allow the use of libraries in
commercial (closed source) applications, but prohibit the extension of such
libraries unless the extensions carry the same open source license, thus
protecting the 'open sourceness' of the library.

Rob

On 4/4/06, Dan Shryock <dan.shryock at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> I agree with you completely.  It is not a problem, just a frustration.
> The licensing of the library will in effect be determining how I build
> portions of an application (specifically making them more complex, even if
> not significantly so), which is my only gripe.  Just seems silly that
> licensing would drive the build process and code (especially since I would
> have zero objections to releasing the port of the code).  Oh well...
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> On 4/4/06, David Rorex <drorex at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see any problem here.
> >
> > 1. Compile the AS classes into their own swf, say "JSON.swf"
> > 2. Your main app is "Main.swf", and does not have any JSON classes
> > compiled into it.
> > 3. At runtime, " Main.swf" will loadMovie (in LGPL terms, 'dynamically
> > link with') "JSON.swf". The end user then will have the option of
> > replacing JSON.swf with a newer version of the library, they could even
> > write a replacement JSON.swf that does something else if they wanted.
> > You'd only be obligated to release source code for the JSON.swf, but NOT
> > for Main.swf
> >
> > In my opinion, this fulfills the license requirements and protects your
> > proprietary code. However, I'm not a lawyer, and I have a feeling most/all
> > people on this list are not either. If the author of the JSON code goes
> > after you, and everything I said was wrong, and a court agrees that the
> > above is wrong, worst case scenario is you have to remove the JSON code and
> > rewrite it from scratch. But I think that is very unlikely.
> >
> > -David R
> >
> >  On 4/4/06, Dan Shryock < dan.shryock at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Nicolas,
> > >
> > > Thats what I was afraid of :(.  It would be so much simpler if I could
> > > just write an app, and compile it as a single swf and not deal with
> > > technical issues due to licensing constraints.  Oh well... thanks again to
> > > you and Ralf for your inputs.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/4/06, Nicolas Cannasse <ncannasse at motion-twin.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > To me, this seems to imply that the situation which I mentioned
> > > > above
> > > > > for C applications is correct.  So my question is this: is
> > > > compiling a
> > > > > swf which contains LGPL code the same thing as a statically linked
> > > >
> > > > > library in terms of this license?  If so, it seems to me that LGPL
> > > > code
> > > > > must be used with more care in actionscript than in other
> > > > languages
> > > > > (which lend themselves to easier use of dynamically linking).
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > > The linking exception of the LGPL is not so much easy to port to
> > > > other
> > > > architectures than C. However I think that a loadMovie would clearly
> > > > be
> > > > considered to be dynamic linking.
> > > >
> > > > Nicolas
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > osflash mailing list
> > > > osflash at osflash.org
> > > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > osflash mailing list
> > > osflash at osflash.org
> > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > osflash mailing list
> > osflash at osflash.org
> > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> osflash mailing list
> osflash at osflash.org
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
>
>
>


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Bateman - Flash Product Manager
BBC News Interactive

Tel: 0208 6248692
Mob: 07714 329073

rob.bateman at gmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://osflash.org/pipermail/osflash_osflash.org/attachments/20060405/60a904a1/attachment-0001.htm