Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[Patrik Stridvall]

> David Elliott <dfe at tgwbd.org> writes:
> 
> > Now, here's another something to mull over.  We've pretty much
> > established that you could statically link something 
> proprietary with
> > something LGPL.  One question I have is how much of the library are
> > you allowed to use.  Alexandre mentioned that while the CryptoAPI
> > example would be a pretty clean-cut allowed case, a proprietary
> > CreateWindow would not be allowed.  His argument was that because it
> > would necessarily use internal functions and data structures that it
> > would be a derived work and thus subject to the license.
> 
> Actually the fact that they are internal or not doesn't make a
> difference, I wasn't clear on that point. 

Agreed. It doesn't matter.

> If your code is linked to
> the library it is considered a derivative work, and by default the
> whole has to be released under the LGPL. Now there are cases where you
> don't need to do that: one is if your app is considered a work that
> uses the library (section 6), the other is if you are placing your
> code side-by-side with the library (section 7).
> 
> So if you don't want your code to fall under the LGPL, you have two
> choices: one is to put it in some part of your app that only links to
> the library, but in that case you cannot have other parts of the
> library depend on your code (this is the square root example). This
> would work for the crypto API, probably not for CreateWindow since the
> rest of user32 needs CreateWindow.

Well, only if it made CreateWindow work different that it was supposed to.
Note that supposed to it pretty vague, however, if you leave it out you
can't even apply bug fixes since it would change the behavior.
 
> The other solution is to put your code side-by-side in the library;
> but this is only possible if your code is not covered by the license,
> which means it isn't a derivative work of the library, which in turns
> means it cannot use any functions or data (exported or not) of the
> library. This would work for the crypto API as long as you don't use
> anything from the rest of libadvapi32.

So what you basicly saying is that a Crypto API that is a part of ADVAPI32
can't call ADVAPI32 functions but a Crypto API in say CRYTPO32 can.

Isn't that quite an absurd state to make? Or rather the perfect illustration
of the absurdities of LGPL.

Of course, I assume that you by use a function mean call a function not cut
and paste from a function.