RE: [announce] CppLua

["Joshua Jensen" <jjensen@...>]

> > Libraries with GPL [http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html] 
> > are practically useless speaking for me and for most 
> application developers.
> 
> Hello Vijay, thanks for your suggestions. I'm actually 
> considering releasing the library under the LGPL. I shall 
> admit I wasn't much informed about the licensing subject, and 
> so I thought GPL was the most natural choice.

LGPL applications are also misunderstood.  IMO, the whole license is in
question as to how effectively it can be used in a closed source commercial
application without legal repercussions.  I really don't want to start a
license discussion on this mailing list, though.  I generally believe it is
off topic, but in relation to a Lua extension library, slightly more
on-topic.  :)

I agree with Asko.  If you are writing a Lua extension, put it under the
same type of license Lua ships under.

Josh

--------------------------
Do not read below this line if you aren't interested in what the LGPL really
is.  I hesitate to put this in here at all, but too many libraries put
themselves under the LGPL, because they believe it applies to the library
source code only.  The LGPL license says differently.
--------------------------

I do want to point out this.  See section 5 of
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html.

"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."

Excepting section 6's shared library mechanism (which all platforms do not
support), linking against your library automatically causes the linked work
to be governed under the LGPL, and the code must be released.  Even more
vague is inline functions in C++ header files when used with a shared
library.  Those functions don't exist in the shared library, and are instead
compiled into the work that uses the library.

All very confusing, and it's sent the past two companies I've worked for
legal departments into fits.

I actually would like to have a heated discussion about this, but not here
in this forum.  Just tell me where, and I'll be there.