Re: LGPL licensing question

[T Lee Davidson <t.lee.davidson@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/24/24 02:08, BB wrote:
> 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)

Okay. I do intend to publish the translated header file. I am using the source file which is actually better documented with 
comments than the documentation itself. The translated work will include the original copyright and disclaimer notice, and will 
make it clear that this is a derivative work. I just didn't want to have to bother with providing my own copyright, disclaimer, etc.

So, as long as it is clear that my intent is to comply with the overall intent of the LGPL, then I might be just fine.

BTW, I understand NAL as a disclaimer. But NENAL? Never Ever?

Thanks, Bruce.


--
Lee

--- Gambas User List Netiquette [https://gambaswiki.org/wiki/doc/netiquette] ----
--- Gambas User List Archive [https://lists.gambas-basic.org/archive/user] ----