Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[Alexandre Julliard]

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.  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
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.

The exception is if your extensions fall under the side-by-side case
of section 7, which would be the case if your code is written from
scratch and doesn't interact with the rest of the library.

> 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.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com