Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[Patrik Stridvall]

> Patrik Stridvall <ps at leissner.se> writes:
> 
> > Even according to a strict interpretation of the LGPL
> > they would just have to provide their code in seperate
> > files so everything could be relinked when new versions
> > of Wine was released.
> 
> It seems you really don't understand the LGPL. Modifications made to a
> library released under the LGPL are a derivative work of this library,
> and have to be LGPL no matter if they are in separate files or
> not.

Saying the ALL modifications gives rise to a derived works even if
distributed
seperately is a ridiculous proposition that is the main problem with (L)GPL.

As I have been trying to explain is that the courts are unlikely to support
this,
at least not 100%. The question is where is borderline is. At the extreme
end
the courts might totaly reject the doctrine of derived work in favour of the
doctrine of combined work what I have been talking about in previous mails. 

If somebody (A) only provide drop in files that replaces some functions say
the
Crypto API in ADVAPI32, they are not any combined work since they are 100%
written by A. Sure the application/library as a whole is of course a
combined
work, but that doesn't matter if you do not distribute it as a whole.

> This is the standard interpretation that just about anybody
> except you agrees with.

If you think everybody agrees what a derived work is you are badly mistaken.
Even Richard Stallman himself admit that the power of (L)GPL is dependent on
how far the courts will allow the doctrine of derived work.

Note that I do not pretend to know how the courts will rule.
But I do know that sticking the head in the sand and pretending
that (L)GPL doesn't have large potential holes in it is quite
naive and potentially dangerous.