[Mono-list] License Addendum

Jay Freeman (saurik) saurik@saurik.com
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 04:46:30 -0500

OUCH, I never noticed how that clause forced applications linked with LGPL
binaries to still be freely redistributable (and in modified form to boot).
I totally agree that there are some issues that need to be dealt with here.

Jay Freeman (saurik)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sebastien Lambla" <sebastien.lambla@6sens.com>
To: <mono-list@ximian.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 4:11 AM
Subject: [Mono-list] License Addendum

> here are my worries about the LGPL license. If anyone can show me there's
> problems, I'll be very happy to use the LGPL license for mono:
> ------
> 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a
> "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing
> portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your
> choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the
> customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
> ------
> That means that a software running on top of mono should include in it's
> license a grant for the users of the application to be able to modify the
> application, reverse engineering it. That  means that most closed-source
> programs which will run on top of the .net framework could "technically"
> on top of mono, but won't "legally" ?
> ------
> For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library"
> must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the
> executable from it.
> ------
> That means publishing the source code of the application and the
> right?
> My main problem with the LGPL license is that it only allow the
> ran on top of mono not to be modified for distribution, but it seems to me
> it still requires to publish source code and such? Which will be a
> for applications which weren't linked "specifically" to the mono library,
> but just built on top of the framework.
> Sebastien Lambla