Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

[Chris DiBona]

You do realize you are talking about a large project, mostly released
under apache and bsd (with -no- proprietary components) right? To say
we're not releasing 'enough' by discussing he linking requirement of
an lgpl library is kind of ignorant.

Chris

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 7:57 AM, mp <m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Max Horn wrote:
>>
>> Am 07.04.2009 um 13:01 schrieb mp:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi, - just a request for clarification, pardon me if I am off the wall
>>> here:
>>>
>>> In general, unless I misunderstand the exchange here, it seems to me
>>> that Google (and possibly LMCO?) are looking for, discussing ways in
>>> which to _avoid_ releasing source code. In other words, _not_working
>>> with the spirit of the F/LOSS movements, but taking whatever they can,
>>> whenever they can, and then using it in non-free, closed source projects.
>>>
>>> If this is indeed the case, notwithstanding the letter of the "law",
>>> then it is not exactly a sign of cooperation, but merely "legal
>>> theft", or?
>>>
>>> If this is not the case, please apologise my ignorance.
>>
>> I think this is clearly not the case! In my understanding, Google is
>> using LGPL software in full compliance with the LGPL here. At least in
>> the way I and many other OSS developers interpret the LGPL section 6(b),
>> both in letter in spirit. Although Allan Hardy seems to disagree with it
>>
>> Anyway, I would be deeply surprised if the developers of JFreeChart and
>> WebKit (the software in question here) would not agree with me here
>> (only way to find out would be asking them).
>>
>> So, let's not start spreading FUD.
>
> This is not in any possible way FUD - at all - and you miss the point
> entirely when you write "full compliance with the LGPL here" as a
> response to the question concerning the spirit of the movement(s). That
> someone is in legal compliance means just that: legal compliance.
>
> The way that I understood it was that the case at hand was about not
> releasing code, yet still being in compliance. You did not answer that
> question, but merely stated they are in compliance - not whether "being
> in compliance" means that they do not have to release their code, since
> it is only dynamically linked or whatever the details are.
>
> So, looking for ways in which to be in compliance _without_ releasing
> your code is not to contribute to the movement in its own spirit, but
> rather like profiting on its achievements, while working contrary to its
> spirit (which is, as you might have noticed, about open source, at
> least, Free Software at best).
>
> -m
>
>>
>> Bye,
>> Max
>>
>>
>
> --
> --The destructive character lives from the feeling, not that life is
> worth living, but that suicide is not worth the trouble-- - Walter
> Benjamin, The Destructive Character, November 1931.
>
>



-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com