OSLib license

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 23 Nov at 0:09 John Tytgat <John.Tytgat at aaug.net> wrote in message
<5aaefb454f.Jo at hobbes.bass-software.com>

> I'm a bit puzzled about OSLib license situation: its headers carry the GPL
> v1 or later license.  In the online OSLib FAQ at
> <URL:http://ro-oslib.sourceforge.net/faq.html> it is stated again that GPL
> (no version) is applicable in the "Who owns the Copyright in OSLib?"
> section.  So that's somewhat consistent with what the headers claim
> (although that web paragraph also says "...in the public domain" which I
> think can mean author-disposes-his-copyright-right in some parts of the
> world so I guess this is somewhat unfortunate).
> 
> The next FAQ entry "Can I distribute my proprietary applications built
> with OSLib?" confuses me completely.  There it is stated that the license
> is not GPL, nor LGPL but that "OSLib may be freely used in the
> construction of proprietary software".  The version of LGPL is not
> mentioned so I just take this source
> <URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html> and as far as
> I can see this license does not restrict me to link OSLib bits with
> proprietary software (I understand this as "non-free software") but
> imposes other restrictions (like providing the object files of the
> proprietary software so that the receiver can relink with a newer version
> of OSLib).  So as a user of OSLib library I'm not sure what I can and need
> to do when I'm using OSLib in my free/non-free programs and distribute
> those.
> 
> I think I'm seeking a more clear description of OSLib license and in what
> way it is different than LGPL or any other license and that this gets
> reflected in the OSLib headers and at other places where it just says GPL
> version 1 or later.
> 
As I wrote most of those documents, I have to take the blame for making it
confusing.

The clear statement, which appears somewhere in the text you refer to, is
that Jonathan released OSLib under the general terms of the then current
GPL, but relaxed its requirements to allow OSLib to be used in proprietary
products.

Remember that at the time the LGPL did not exist, or at best was in its
infancy, and this may have possibly been more appropriate. Also, the GPL
itself was at v1 at that time. The licence conditions were imposed by
Jonathan, and nobody felt the need to question them. I believe he simply
picked the GPL because it was well known, available, and he desired to
support the general aims of the GNU project. Maybe he'll correct me here.

There have been a few queries, like yours, and one or two people have
positively declined to use OSLib because of the licence conditions. However,
to be honest, I believe it not to be worthwhile doing anything about it;
certainly any confusion should be cleared up, although I don't fully
understand why confusion should arise.

Personally, I believe you're seeing a problem where there is none, but as
always, if you wish to propose amendments you're welcome to do so. Of course
we'd need to run any changes past Jonathan, but I can't imagine he'd raise
too many objections to any sensible scheme.

Cheers, Tony
-- 
Tony van der Hoff        | mailto:tony at vanderhoff.org
Buckinghamshire, England