Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[David Elliott]

On 2001.12.15 13:33 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> 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. This is the standard interpretation that just about anybody
> except you agrees with.
> 
Read it again.

Any modifications to existing code, yes.  This is why I like the LGPL.  
However, if someone is reimplementing a portion from scratch they could 
make a successfull argument that their portion of the overall DLL was a 
seperate library and the LGPL /DOES/ state that you can link an LGPL 
library and your own library to form another library.

The crypto part of ADVAPI32 was the example I used.  Let's say I were to 
write a CryptoAPI implementation as a set of seperate source files.  With 
the LGPL I could compile all of that stuff and refer to it as a library.  
What is a library? I would say one or more object files linked together 
form a library.  I could then take my CryptoAPI library, link it with the 
rest of Wine's ADVAPI32 and distribute a libadvapi32.so that could be 
dropped into a wine install.

Of course the LGPL states I would also at the very least have to provide 
at least binaries of my portion independently so that the end-user could 
take my library and link it with a newer version of Wine's ADVAPI32.  This 
is why I think the LGPL is advantageous.  Instead of being locked in to 
using the libadvapi32.so as distributed by me which could happen with the 
X11 license, with the LGPL license I must keep it in a seperate object 
file such that the parts of it that are LGPL can be updated.  This is a 
Good Thing.

I am honestly all for the LGPL on Wine's codebase.  I disagree with 
Patrick saying that it offers us no protection or what he refers to as 
very minimal protection.  I think the scenario I listed above is a very 
important one and illustrates exactly what the LGPL is supposed to 
accomplish.  However, according to Patrick this is very little protection 
so why not keep it X11 license and thus avoid the deterrence that the LGPL 
might be to some people.

NOTE Patrick: Consider this to be my reply to your message.  The only 
thing we are arguing is that you consider this to be weak, while I 
consider it to be at least a little more protection that we currently 
have.  At least it prevents people from taking what we have already done 
and forces them to reimplement if they don't want to play by the LGPL 
rules.

Also note that I am only trying to point out, like you are, that the LGPL 
is not a whole lot of protection.  But the little protection it does 
provide is very profound.

I suppose if we want the definitive answer on this then someone ought to 
ask the FSF about it.

-Dave