On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:07:33 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Their response said: "I understand from your description that you are
>   a
> proprietary software developer. If I am wrong in this understanding,
> please correct me. [...] We offer our services by paid consultation to
> non-free software developers."

"No, you're right, I do develop proprietary software professionally, but 
I'm looking to participate in a free software development project on my 
own time and want to clearly understand the license."

Unless, of course, you want to use LGPL code in a proprietary package, in 
which case, their request doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:06:26 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   The implication was that if I had claimed that I'm making free
>   software,
> they could have answered my questions for free. That feels a bit biased,
> and thus wrong.

They have no way of knowing if your true intention is to look for a way 
to circumvent the terms of the license; if they give you advice that then 
could be used to circumvent those terms *for free*, then you can claim 
you asked them.

If they ask for payment, though, that becomes a filter for those who are 
just looking for ways around the terms of the license.

Note that I'm absolutely not saying that it is your intention to 
circumvent the license; but they don't have the luxury of assuming 
anything.  There are plenty of people out there looking to tear down the 
GPL in all its forms, and if the *help* someone do that, then they've 
kinda defeated their own purpose.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:19:43 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   Also, having created a relatively popular LGPL library myself, it
>   would
> be good to know what I'm actually using.

Reference that library in your communications, then, and make your 
questions relevant to work you've released under the license.  I suspect 
they'd not ask for a consultation fee in that instance.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b6a39b1@news.povray.org...

> > >   I understand this to mean that if I had lied they could perhaps have
> > > answered my questions free of charge.

> > Wouldn't the advice then be inapplicable to your case?

>   The LGPL terms don't change depending on whether the software using
> the LGPL library is proprietary/commercial or not. It applies equally to
> all software.

Your question was:

<quote>
1) If I understand section 4 of the license (version 3) correctly, for
a closed-source program to comply with the LGPL when it uses a library
distributed under that license, it's enough for the program to use a [...]
</quote>

If you claim to be an open-source developer, the clarificiation they provide
would not be for a "...closed-source program to comply..." but for an
"...open-source program to comply...", unless your wording is superfluous.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>> I can sympathize. If you're going to get paid for using what they gave for 
>> free, then you can afford to pay them to find out what they mean.
> 
>   Most LGPL libraries out there are not owned by the FSF. It's not like it's
> *their* loss.

Technically true. For fanatics, false.

>   (Besides, the whole point of the LGPL license is for the libraries to be
> usable in proprietary software. They explicitly state it as such.)

Yes, but they don't like it. :-)

>   It's not like I asked for legally binding consultation per se. I just
> wanted some clarifications.

In some countries, that *is* legally binding consultation.

>>>   Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.
> 
>> Maybe you live in a country where people don't get in trouble for giving 
>> free legal advice. :-)
> 
>   But they should know their *own* license. 

I'm sure *they* know the answer.

> Or is it so that they cannot
> formulate official opinions on their own license without asking their
> lawyers first?

I'm sure they already asked their lawyers. They're not going to have their 
lawyers work for you to free.

Having come thru many years of having rich people asking me to work for them 
for free, I can fully understand that.

>   If they don't want to get "abused" like that, then why did they create
> the LGPL license in the first place?

Because the world doesn't work the way they'd want it to. It's the same 
reason they specifically exempt the GCC runtime from the GPL: if they 
didn't, someone would make a proprietary compiler (or even an open one with 
such an exemption) and GCC wouldn't get used by programmers good enough to 
get paid for their work.

Just because they resent it doesn't mean they don't have to. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   The implication was that if I had claimed that I'm making free software,
> they could have answered my questions for free. That feels a bit biased,
> and thus wrong.

And only homeless people get free soup here. :-)

Seriously, give them the $150 if you're working on a program you're going to 
sell, or ask your own lawyer for an opinion.

Or are you just complaining about free software rather than looking for a 
solution? :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Seriously, give them the $150 if you're working on a program you're going to 
> sell, or ask your own lawyer for an opinion.

  That's the thing: This was *not* for any project I'm currently developing.
I was not asking on behalf of my company or anything. It *might* become
relevant in the future if I find the need to use an LGPL library in a project.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  I must say I'm a bit dumbfounded. I sent an email to the Free Software
> Foundation asking a couple of question about the LGPL license, as its 
> terms
> are a bit unclear on a couple of situations. I mentioned that I work for
> a company which creates Windows and iPhone apps.
>
>  Apparently that was a mistake. They outright *refuse* to answer my
> questions because I'm a non-free software developer unless I pay them
> $150 for a 30-minute consultation. (They explicitly state that if I don't
> pay for the service, then sorry, no banana, I'll have to be content with
> what they already offer in their public website.)

Surely your company would pay up for such issues?

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Surely your company would pay up for such issues?

  I didn't ask on behalf of my company nor because we would currently have
a project where an LGPL library is required.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Surely your company would pay up for such issues?
>
>  I didn't ask on behalf of my company nor because we would currently have
> a project where an LGPL library is required.

But the fact you mentioned you worked for a software development company 
looks a bit dodgy (I had assumed it was questions you wanted answered for 
your job too).

Why not just ask them again from a different email account, but without 
mentioning you are a professional software developer this time?  You might 
want to reword the questions significantly and split them up to come from 
different people.

Post a reply to this message