[antlr-interest] ANTLR 3 License

[Matt Benson]

Advance apologies for beating this dead horse...

This discussion is the reason I have dreaded the day I
would have to try and make sense of an open-source
license (on that note, BSD does read like Dick and
Jane).  But the day has come, and I might as well face
it like a man, so here goes:

I am still not resolved to this explanation.  In one
of your earlier messages you quoted the first
paragraph of LGPL Section 6 and went on to say that,
with regard to a hypothetical "work that uses the
Library", where "Library" is understood to mean one
licensed under the terms of the LGPL, requirement 6a
must be met if our hypothetical "work" includes a
distribution of the "Library," whereas requirement 6b
should be met otherwise.  But let's jump back a
moment.  Here's that first paragraph yet again:


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
modifications.


What did that say?  That "the terms of your choice"
must "permit modification of the work" "and reverse
engineering"?  This seems to clearly require the
customer to be given the right to modify not only the
"Library" (already covered in the LGPL), but of the
"work" (again, short for "work that uses the Library")
as well.

Am I out of my mind?  Shall I forego all confidence in
my own literacy, to paraphrase you?


-Matt

--- Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com> wrote:
> Quoting Matt Benson <gudnabrsam at yahoo.com>:
> 
> > Okay, just because the conversation got
> interesting, I
> > took it upon myself to read section six and some
> of
> > the text immediately preceding that section. 
> Meaning
> > no disrespect, it seems to me that (assuming he
> was
> > correctly quoted in the POI development forum)
> Dave
> > Turner's responses there and below are
> contradictory.
> > My interpretation of the answer
> > 
> > "DT:  This sort of linking falls under section 6
> of
> > the LGPL."
> > 
> > is:  "Java code that depends on LGPL Java classes
> via
> > import statements and/or fully-qualified class
> names
> > must fulfill the terms of section 6 of the LGPL to
> > remain in compliance."
> > 
> >   This is in direct opposition to Braden's
> > interpretation, which has received DT's blessings
> this
> > week.
> 
> In fact, it is not.
> 
> The point of contention was not whether Clause 6
> applies. It was an issue of 
> what Clause 6 requires.
> 
> -- 
> Braden McDaniel                           e-mail:
> <braden at endoframe.com>
> <http://endoframe.com>                    Jabber:
> <braden at jabber.org>
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/