Hi List,
(NOTE: Please keep eigen@lists.tuxfamily.org in CC.)
I would like to know if the LGPLv3 can be suitable for a C++ pure template library, where all the code is in headers?
I asked the same question on this list in 2006 about the LGPLv2 and got this answer,
http://osdir.com/ml/org.fsf.europe.discussion/2006-10/msg00091.html
according to which the LGPLv2 is not suitable for a pure template library, and such libraries should instead use the GPL plus an exception.
I would really like to be able to use an unmodified license, instead of having to resort to appending an exception. So I would be very happy if the LGPLv3 solved the problems of the LGPLv2 that prevented it from being usable for a pure template library.
(I could also elaborate on why I do not use the GPL. I need my project to be usable by a wide range of other projects, some of which might be under BSD license, some others might be dual-licensed GPL/proprietary, etc. I just want to allow everybody to use my project without any worry).
Best Regards,
Benoît Jacob
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 11:25:16AM +0100, Benoît Jacob wrote:
Hi List,
(NOTE: Please keep eigen@lists.tuxfamily.org in CC.)
I would like to know if the LGPLv3 can be suitable for a C++ pure template library, where all the code is in headers?
I asked the same question on this list in 2006 about the LGPLv2 and got this answer,
Why don't you adress licensing@fsf.org ?
Best wishes Michael
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 13:24:21 Michael Kesper wrote:
Why don't you adress licensing@fsf.org ?
Because I didn't know about this list -- despite having looked for "licensing" and "mailing lists" on the fsf.org website.
Anyway I have looked into this issue more closely in the meanwhile, and have concluded by myself that the LGPLv3 does solve the problems of the LGPLv2 with respect to #included C++ code.
Cheers,
Benoit
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 17:18:47 Benoît Jacob wrote:
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 13:24:21 Michael Kesper wrote:
Why don't you adress licensing@fsf.org ?
Because I didn't know about this list -- despite having looked for "licensing" and "mailing lists" on the fsf.org website.
Oh, I probably only looked at fsfeurope.org.
I wonder, what's the point of having a fsfeurope.org if even for simple questions such as mine one has to refer to fsf.org!
Cheers,
Benoit
Hi, Benoît!
Am Mittwoch, den 06.02.2008, 17:22 +0100 schrieb Benoît Jacob:
I wonder, what's the point of having a fsfeurope.org if even for simple questions such as mine one has to refer to fsf.org!
Of course you can contact FSFE's Freedom Task Force if you have licensing questions.
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/contact
Thanks,
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 18:06:14 Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Of course you can contact FSFE's Freedom Task Force if you have licensing questions.
Thank you, I did not know what the Freedom Task Force was (it was not that obvious from the name!)
Cheers,
Benoit
Benoît Jacob wrote:
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 18:06:14 Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Of course you can contact FSFE's Freedom Task Force if you have licensing questions.
Thank you, I did not know what the Freedom Task Force was (it was not that obvious from the name!)
My apologies for any confusion regarding contacting us.
Just for reference, licensing questions can always be submitted to ftf@fsfeurope.org.
Regards
Shane
On 06-Feb-2008, Benoît Jacob wrote:
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 13:24:21 Michael Kesper wrote:
Why don't you adress licensing@fsf.org ?
Because I didn't know about this list -- despite having looked for "licensing" and "mailing lists" on the fsf.org website.
That's probably because licensing@fsf.org isn't a discussion mailing list, but a contact point to talk with FSF's licensing experts.
Benoît Jacob wrote:
I would like to know if the LGPLv3 can be suitable for a C++ pure template library, where all the code is in headers?
I have passed your question on to Brett Smith at the FSF licensing lab. If you no longer need our assistance please let me know.
Regards
Shane
On Thursday 07 February 2008 11:45:30 Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
I have passed your question on to Brett Smith at the FSF licensing lab.
Many thanks!
If you no longer need our assistance please let me know.
Well, since I am no lawyer, I am always happy to receive informed advice.
My understanding was that the LGPL3 does indeed cover the case of C++ template libraries -- namely in its Section 3, "Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files".
I am still interested in a confirmation/infirmation that I got that right.
Cheers,
Benoit