Re: [tlug] A semi-related question

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth  <emry@example.com> writes:

    Kenneth> Interesting concept, a web generated license.  I was
    Kenneth> looking at the LGPL. It would be perfect under very
    Kenneth> specific circumstances.  Mainly for what I am thinking,
    Kenneth> it would only work for dynamicly linked libraries.  For
    Kenneth> distributing protocols, or general graphics tools,, it
    Kenneth> would work fine.

I don't understand what, if anything, the problem is.  You wrote

    Kenneth> Is there a license out there that will allow all of the
    Kenneth> protections of the GPL license with the exception that
    Kenneth> the work can be used as a part of a larger work such that
    Kenneth> only the original licensed code must be under the same
    Kenneth> license, but the rest of the project could be under
    Kenneth> another source, or even "closed" source/non-free?

That is exactly what the LGPL does.  It _is_ the GPL, except that
instead of claiming the full scope of derivatives available under law
(what is often call "the exec(2) boundary"), it claims only the
compilation unit.  It doesn't matter whether the linking is dynamic or
static.

I don't know what happens with macro libraries, though.  It seems to
me that including a macro library would prima facie make your work a
direct derivative of the macro library, but RMS says not.

-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.