Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[Patrik Stridvall]

> Patrik Stridvall <ps at leissner.se> writes:
> 
> > For example:
> > void CryptFoo()
> > {
> > 	CRYPT32_CryptFoo();
> > }
> > 
> > and release the code above under the LGPL.
> 
> That's the square root example. If you do that, you have to make sure
> that the use of CRYPT32_CryptFoo is optional and that the function
> still behaves properly if your CRYPT32 function is not available.

Forget for a moment I was trying to circumvent the LGPL.

Lets say I just found a crypto library called CRYPTO32 under a
proprietory license that I wished to use. It so happends that
they had almost 100% the same functions as the Crypto API.

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.

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.

The company that wrote the proprietory library neither knew about the
me nor about Wine so how can they have violated the LGPL.

> > They had a goal and I'm sure a lot of competent people did the best
> > they could be accieve it.
> > 
> > However, you can do the impossible no matter how hard you try.
> 
> Strangely there are thousands of people, including lawyers, who seem
> to think that the LGPL does what it claims to do. If the problems are
> so obvious, how come no one else sees them?  Could it be that maybe,
> just maybe, it is because all these people are right and you are
> wrong?

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?