Re: [DotGNU]Re: licensing of fox toolkit

[Fergus Henderson]

On 10-Jan-2003, jeroen <address@hidden> wrote:
> A work is a derivative work from the Library, in the legal sense, if it 
> incorporates more than 10 lines of source code from the library; see LGPL 
> License statement.

That statement is not correct.  The law does not specify any magic
number such as "10 lines".  Furthermore, the LGPL does not imply
what you wrote above.

> > When it is nessisary to add extra privileges to clearify issues like this,
> > in my own opinion, one way to do that is to have a revertable license; that
> > is you can either accept the license with some specific priviledges added,
> > or accept and use it under the terms of the GNU GPL (or lgpl) unmodified.
> 
> Yes.  That's what it says.

That's not what the version posted to this mailing list earlier says.
That version says that the requirements of your addendum take precedence
over the LGPL, and that those requirements include an advertising 
requirement.  So according to that version, you can't use it just
under the terms of the GPL -- you also need to abide by your advertising
requirement.

> If you consider a Venn-diagram of the set of
> "allowed uses" resulting from the LGPL license, then the set of "allowed uses"
> resulting from the FOX license addendum contains the former as a proper
> subset, in other words the FOX License addendum gives you additional uses
> which the LGPL does not, but only if you meet these certain requirements.

Your intent sounds admirable, however, the version posted to this list
earlier does not say that.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <address@hidden>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.