Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[Patrik Stridvall]

> Patrik Stridvall <ps at leissner.se> writes:
> 
> > So almost all functions would look like 
> > void CryptFoo()
> > {
> > #if HAVE_LIBCRYPTO32
> > 	CRYPT32_CryptFoo();
> > #else
> >       /* Old Wine code */
> > #endif
> > }
> > 
> > with a few minor exception.
> > 
> > So you mean that I can't legally do that despite the fact that
> > the LGPL is meant to allow linking to proprietary licenses.
> 
> The LGPL allows using LGPLed code from proprietary applications. It
> does not allow making the LGPLed code dependent on proprietary code
> for its own functionality.
> 
> > I think you have misunderstood something seriously.
> > Please, this is the absolute worst argument from you 
> > as of yet. You can't seriously believe this.
> > 
> > Also note that the code that I wrote above was supplied 
> under the LGPL,
> > so I don't see how you can claim that I violated the LGPL.
> 
> Of course you cannot violate the license of your own code, don't be
> silly.  

Exactly.

> But if you put this code in an LGPL library written by someone
> else and distribute the end result, you have to make a good faith

Yes and DISTRIBUTE the end result is the key.

But why should I do that?
I can for example write a script that download Wine for the end user user
and apply the patch automatically.

> effort to ensure that the library works properly even in the absence
> of your proprietary library. This means you need to implement the
> #else case and release that under the LGPL. Go read the square root
> example in section 2 of the LGPL.

Perhaps, but I need not distribute so it doesn't matter.

The point that I have been tried to make all along that only the doctrine
of can make my trickery illegal. Without it, it doesn't matter that I 
use Wine in a, hmm, let call it a non standard way.

Anyway I think this discussion, at least the one between you and me, are
running around in circles and doesn't move forward at all, so lets just end
it.
 
> > Could it be that they rely on that that the dotrine of derived work
> > will save them from people trying to use the lopeholes in 
> the licenses?
> 
> Sure, maybe you understand the law better than all the lawyers who
> looked into this issue. I'm not betting on it.

It is not primarily understanding that is the issue here.
I have said that I believe, and have tried to explain why, that a strong
doctrine
of derived work is not good for society, because it leads to all sort
of absurd consequences.

Therefore is believe (or rather hope) that the courts will se sanity and
only constitionally allow a very weak doctrine of derived work and thus
render viral licenses such as LGPL of most (all?) of its power since it
will be quite easy avoid the requirements with a little trickery.

Note that this will almost exclusivly effect viral open source license
since normal commersial work will get their $100 or whatever regardless
since there is no trickery that can legally avoid it.