[cairo] Re: License for cairo changed to LGPL
spitzak at d2.com
Wed Aug 4 12:52:44 PDT 2004
On Wednesday 04 August 2004 11:50 am, Carl Worth wrote:
> That would be the best possible outcome. If language with this intent
> could make it into an LGPL-2.2 that would be ideal. Are you aware of
> anyone having approached the FSF with something like this?
I'm under the impression that RMS explicitly does not like these sort of
exemptions, so that such a license wording is going to have to come from some
other official source, such as maybe the OSF?
> > I agree that Cairo is going to need this sort of license if it is going
> > to be a useable and portable graphics interface.
> I'm not as convinced that the LGPL-2.1 isn't already quite usable.
> I'll provide a little feedback on some of the things I noticed in the
> language of the FLTK exception, (obviously none of which is legal advice
> since I am not a lawyer and I have no legal training):
> > FLTK 2.0 LGPL EXCEPTION:
> Is "exception" really the best term here?
This term was described somewhere in the GPL documentation for how to add
rules like "you may link with closed-source program x". This was also used in
some other widget libraries that I looked at.
> What does "normal terms" mean? This seems quite vague. Also "this
> license" seems to unspecific.
You are right I will rewrite it to say "the terms of the LGPL".
> Also, I don't think the language choice
> here is ideal. The "you may distribute" seems not strong enough. The
> terms here should be explicit, along the lines of, "If modifications are
> made... then you must..." or something similar.
The idea is that if you want to distribute your closed program, you must also
distribute the changes you made to the library. However if you don't want to
distribute it you don't have to distribute your changes, thus the "may".
More information about the cairo