Free Software Foundation, Inc.
In GPL3d3 we have a url for the FSF included. Do we want one here too?
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
I agree with Josh; I think we should have a URL here as well.
I have commented on GPL draft 3 that it is not clear in defining the scope of a covered work. The difference between strong-copyleft and weak-copyleft is precisely in the scope of the covered work. Both forms of copyleft exclude from the covered work other works that interact with the covered work using certain forms of communications and control flow deemed characteristic of independent works. This was somewhat more clearly stated in GPL v2, and was supplemented by guidance outside the license itself. The text and guidance have been modified and migrated into different places in the GPL v3 draft. The result has become confusing.
Strong copyleft extends the covered work into code that has certain forms of linkage, communications, and control flow, although these are not clearly stated in the GPL v3 draft. Weak copyleft does not extend the covered work in the presence of some forms of linkage, communications, and control flow that strong copyleft would bring into the covered work. If a section were added to the GPL v3 draft clearly indicating the scope of a GPL covered work, then the LGPL could simply replace that section with language covering the scope of an LGPL covered work. Frankly, I find the language of GPL draft 3 vague regarding its scope, and the language of LGPL draft 2 totally incomprehensible. I think they both need to be fixed in the same area, and that they would both be much more clear as a result.
excluding any source code for portions of the Combined Work that, considered in isolation, are based on the Application, and not on the Linked Version.
I don't think this is phrased quite right. Saying "excluding any source code for portions of the Combined Work that, considered in isolation, are not based on the Linked Version" would be simpler and (IMHO) more in line with LGPL 2.1 Application code usually /is/ the Application, and it is not really accurate to say it's just "based" on it.
Adding the phrase "or later" would allow LGPL 3 code to be modified and incorporated into applications released under version 3 of the GPL *or later*.noted by on 2007-06-21 at 18:43 EDT:
That should be left up to the author placing his work under the terms of the LGPL in my opinion.
This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed below
Major improvement with respect to LGPLv2.1: the LGPL is now designed as a plain set of additional permission that supplement the GPL. This makes things much clearer and easier to understand and work with. As I already stated regarding LGPLv3draft1, I like this idea.
noted by on 2007-05-08 at 20:28 EDT:
I hope that the GPLv3 changes the term Program in Work (see my comment number 2752). Likewise, I would like to see a more neutral term instead of "The Library" in the text of the LGPLv3. Just to make clear that the LGPL can be applied to non-libraries too...
The term used here should be the same as the one used in the GPL (currently "Program", but "Work" would be better), since they are referring to the same thing.
but changing it is not allowed.
I think that modifying the LGPL (and all other copyright licences) should definitely be allowed, as long as it's made completely clear that it's a different licence. A copyright licence is a functional work, and I think all functional works should be free in the same sense as free software. I've heard RMS say something similar to that in his speeches before. I'd possibly even go as far as saying the FSF is doing something unethical by not allowing modified versions. I think that notice should be changed to something along the lines of "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document. Modified versions may also be made and distributed as long as the name of the licence is changed, the terms 'GNU' and 'Lesser General Public License' are removed, and the preamble is removed."noted by on 2007-04-16 at 07:47 EDT:
Sorry, I shouldn't have included the text "and the preamble is removed" at the end of that comment, as the LGPL doesn't have a preamble of its own.noted by on 2007-05-18 at 06:14 EDT:
The LGPL should be licensed under the LGPL, so it can be included in LGPL works.
Rather than "Application", perhaps "Dependant Work".noted by on 2007-06-22 at 12:22 EDT:
you mean "dependent work"
The "Corresponding Application Code" for a Combined Work
Rather than "The 'Corresponding Application Code' for a Combined Work", perhaps "the application in re-linkable form" (or "the dependant work in re-linkable form").
LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Call it the /Linking/ GPL rather than the Lesser GPL, this would be clearer. The license is a weaker copyleft license than the GPL, and lesser indicates this, but it does not specify how it is weaker. It is weaker in that it allows linking with other licenses.
and, in your modifications, a facility refers to a function or data
The license should make clear that modified versions of libraries without this "facility" can be distributed under the LGPL. As is, it seems other modified versions of library might fall back on the GPL permission and have to be distributed under the GPL.
Shouldn't this be "and explain"?
Be more specific. Make this the "Linked Version of the Library" (or the "Linked Version of the Work").
Change "Combined Work" to "Linked Application" (or "Linked Dependant Work").noted by on 2007-05-28 at 19:02 EDT:
As it stands, Section 4 deals with Combined Works, and Section 5 deals with Combined Libraries, which sound like essentially the same thing, but are actually quite different.
Minimal Corresponding Source
Change "Minimal Corresponding Source" to "Appropriated Corresponding Source"
2. Conveying Modified Versions.
Is this section necessary? The LGPL allows propriatary software developers to drink from the cup of free software, which IMHO is a good thing. However this section allows them to spit their backwash into the cup, so to speak. Surely this allows LGPL works to become incompatible with the GPL? To me, it seems like a bad thing.
Perhaps this should be allowed only for works also released under previous versions of the LGPL, so it can be phased out?
1. Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL.
Since Section 1 relates to Sections 3 and 4, it should be adjacent to them.
to version 3 of the GNU General Public License
I think this should read "to version 3, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., of the GNU General Public License.
I think we want to be sure that LGPLv3 is upwards compatible with all future versions of the GPL. There's really no reason that LGPL'd code shouldn't be auto-upgradable to any later version of the stronger copyleft that's available.
I should note this will create a minor drafting problem for GPLv4 drafters, as they will need to preserve properly the GPL section numbers mentioned in LGPLv3.
ten or fewer lines in length
Since C and at least a few other languages don't care about line length it is trivial to cause a function, macro or whatever to take up anything from a single line to hundred or more lines. Placing limits on number of lines is pretty silly.noted by on 2007-06-25 at 20:42 EDT:
The restriction should be on a number of characters (or bytes just in case unicode is used), not lines.
uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system
The way this is phrased, it can be read as forbidding the dynamic downloading/installing and binding plug-ins (e.g. web plugins opened with dlopen) which are technically not on the computer system "at run time" but are otherwise essentially dynamic libraries.
I would replace "at" with "during" (or use "at or during") to remove the implication that the library must exist at application start time and still not break the restriction against statically bound libraries.