[Dune] Re: [Dune-CVS] dune-web r262 - layout

[Nicolas Neuss]

Sven Marnach <sven at pantoffel-wg.de> writes:

> Hi again,
> 
> Nicolas Neuss schrieb am Do, 12. Apr 2007, um 17:15:17 +0200:
> > I don't see "free" as redundant here and am astonished that you judge the
> > two wordings to be equivalent.  Especially for the FSF, "free" has a very
> > specific meaning.
> 
> The following question and answer -- taken from
> 
>   http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html
> 
> made me believe the word "free" is redundant:
> 
> Q: I see. So, what restrictions are there on programs that use the
>    library?
> A: None. We encourage such programs to be released as open source, but
>    we won't punish you or sue you if you choose otherwise.

I don't know from where the FAQ gets this interpretation.  As much as I
know, for the FSF, "free" is more or less equivalent with GPL, LGPL (maybe
BSD too).

> I think I mistook the "free software library" to be the piece of
> software using the source file in question.

That is also how I understand it.

> So the following version should be correct:
> 
>    As a special exception, you may use the DUNE library without
>    restriction.  Specifically, if other files instantiate templates or
>    use macros or inline functions from one or more of the DUNE source
>    files, or you compile one or more of the DUNE source files and link
>    them with other files to produce an executable, this does not by
>    itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU
>    General Public License.  This exception does not however invalidate
>    any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the
>    GNU General Public License.
>
> Did I get it right now?
>
>     Sven

In general, I do not like deriving from a licence which explicitly forbids
modification.  That is, as soon as you modify GPL (or LGPL), you do not
have GPL anymore.

Nicolas