Re: LGPL licensing question

[BB <adamnt42@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 23/3/24 4:18 am, T Lee Davidson wrote:
> Is anyone well-versed with the ins and outs of LGPL licensing?
>
> For example, the LGPL 2.1 license 
> [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html] states:
> "A 'work based on the Library' means either the Library or any 
> derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing 
> the Library or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications 
> and/or translated straightforwardly into another language."
>
> What is meant by "language"? Is that human language or programming 
> language? I would have to assume it means a human language, but it may 
> mean both.
>
> So my question is, if a C header file is translated to BASIC, is that 
> considered a derivative work and subject to the license terms with the 
> same requirements for copyright and disclaimer notice?
I think you have to look at "intent" and "prior art" in this. The first 
thing being your intent to publish the translated header. If not then 
your just a user, do what you like. If yes, then you have to consider 
not only your header file but also whose intellectual property did you 
use to construct your header. This can get quite messy... did you use 
the actual library source code for the C header file or did you use some 
published documentation from "somewhere"? Did that documentation have 
GPL constraints? etc etc etc (Please send $500 for this initial 
consultation from b-law inc 😁).

The overall intent of GPL in this view is "don't steal other folks 
intellectual property and sell it as if it were your own". Many people 
do use others IP, as they have published it, acknowledging the original 
author. This I think is the nice way to do it and increase both their 
and your own karma.

b (NAL, in fact NENAL)