On Monday 15 November 2010 23:03:24 Josh Faust wrote:
> > - most files do not contain any license information; if you make
> >
> > Orocos-derived work (which you do, I think, and which is, of course,
> > allowed and even stimulated) you are bound by using the same license as
> >
> > the
> >
> > work you derive from; and in the case of Orocos that is LGPL and not
> > BSD (most of the time).
>
> This is definitely *not* a derived work. He is using Orocos as a library.
> The whole point of the LGPL is to allow others to use your library without
> binding them to your license.
>
> It would be a derived work if he had modified Orocos itself and released
> it.
I agree with Josh, although the term 'derived work' may not name it correctly.
The components, in the C++ sense, literally 'derive' from RTT classes, but
they are not subject to RTT's license. What is more important is what the RTT
license says: It reads as the GPL + this exception:
"
* As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free *
* software library without restriction. Specifically, if other files *
* instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this *
* file, or you compile this file and link it with other files to *
* produce an executable, this file does not by itself cause the *
* resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public *
* License. This exception does not however invalidate any other *
* reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General *
* Public License. *
"
This is the exact same exception that all GCC code had before moving on to GPL
v3. So this is de facto a very widely used and accepted license form. Every
C++ program/library compiled with GCC (pre-GPLv3) is subject to that license.
Peter
(text/plain)