[cairo] Pango License

[Travis Griggs]

On Dec 16, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Thomas Stover wrote:

>> From: Peter Clifton <pcjc2 at cam.ac.uk>
>
>> Importantly though, it does allow the user to modify / bug-fix the  
>> LGPL
>> library part of the system, even if they aren't afforded the rights  
>> to
>> do so with other parts of the code.
>
> Agreed. Glad this came up since I was oblivious this facet of the  
> LGPL,
> and I do a reasonable job of paying attention.
>
> To try to reel this thread back to the original post, apparently  
> certain
> outfits do not want to bundle Pango and other LGPL code with an
> installation package for windows or osx. (not bothered by it on
> environments it already exists & embedded/image distribution of doz/ 
> osx
> unlikely). This conceptually stemming from working with the  
> interpretation
> that installation packages with bundled libraries are a form of static
> linking, and that distribution of a "repackage" kit would circumvent
> license key enforcement schemes.
>
> Sounds like either: 1) that is just the way the authors intended so  
> deal
> with it, 2) the FSF would need to clarify the intention of the LGPL  
> (maybe
> they have already), 3) an license exemption would need to be made,  
> or 4)
> just use a separate install package for the libraries.
>
> Is this really a show stopper for many businesses? Why does that  
> sound far
> fetched to me?
>
> Sorry for talking this to death.
>

It is a show stopper. I don't think it should be. I think I should be  
able to explain to them rationally, things like you say above. But  
these are BIG companies with *lots* of software stuff (none of the  
citations I listed were made up). We've been round and round with, and  
people inside of them have been round and round with their own legal/ 
IT departments. It just takes too much momentum. All it does in the  
end, is kill your bid.

Any clarification the FSF made, or individual adaptations, etc, would  
be lost on these people. If it's GPL related, it's not worth their  
time/money to figure it out. Given that other large company's have  
provided them with alternatives that feel safe (MIT, MPL, CPL, etc),  
why should they? For example, here's IBM's approved list:

Apache Public Licenses
Artistic Licenses
BSD License
Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) -v 1.0
Common Public License Version 1.0 (CPL)
Eclipse Public License -v 1.0
Globus Toolkit licenses
IBM Public License Version 1.0
The MIT License
Mozilla Public License Version 1.0
Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1)
W3C® Software Notice And License

And since lots of big projects now use these, their position is "look,  
if others can get with the program, why should we make exceptions for  
yours?"

Personally, I think things were not so bad before v3. v3 of the GPL  
caused a bit of bad press. A small handful of people actually know  
what the details were about. Most people have no idea what the  
differences are between v3 and former versions. So from an outsider's  
view, what they see is that GPL was kinda out of the everyday, and  
yep, wouldn't ya know, things are getting worse with it.

--
Travis Griggs
Objologist
"I choose. Therefore, I Am"