Thanks for replying so fast and reassuring us all, Doomwiz. However, I still think the license is not very clear.

Lets consider this case: in 5 years time I have set up a successful business selling an app which uses the OpenIL library. This forum and this discussion have disappeared into limbo, you''re not around to speak your mind, and a rival company decides to bring this case up just to undercut me. Now this may sound a bit far-fetched but you must admit sueing for market reasons is becoming more and more common these days.

If the LGPL (or whatever new name you want to give it) were simply added to with a line that says something like this:

"Including non-modified OpenIL header files in the code and dynamically linking to the OpenIL libraries creates a "work that uses the library" and not a "derivative of the library". Such an executable would therefore NOT be covered by this license".

I think this would clearly solve the issue and make a lot of very happy OpenIL users.

:-)

Well, I am no legal expert myself but I do have some experience in writing up contracts as a freelance. My experience is that these have to be as short and as unambiguous as possible, leaving no room for possible misinterpretation if it falls in the wrong hands.

I believe attention should be focused on article 5 and its sub-paragraphs, where definition is given for a "work that uses the library" and a "work that is a derivative of the library". I find this part unclear, but that is probably because I am not so familiar with the programming terms being used, not being a programmer by training.

Doomwiz, I think the issue is more technical than legal. As a programmer, you probably understand article 5 better than me and that is what you should clarify. If I were writing up this license I would simply replace paragraphs 1 to 4 in article 5 with the following:


5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

The executable produced by such a work is also considered a "work that uses the Library" and not a "derivative of the library". Such an executable would therefore also fall outside the scope of this License.


This is effectively changing the licensing terms so you should rename it to "The Free Executable License" or something like that. You should also remove references to the Free Software Foundation and ask them if you can use their licensing terms as a base for your own, which they will probably agree to if they''re as relaxed as they seem :-).

I believe you should also ask for their advice on this. Your aim, if I get it right, is simply to protect your rights as creator of OpenIL. You don''t want anyone taking credit for it in your place, and you don''t want anyone selling it for a profit. In that case maybe the LGPL is not the best license for you and maybe the Free Software Foundation has something better. You may want to take a look at the definition of "free non-copylefted software" on their site.

Basically, your license should give different rights depending on whether the user is distributing the source of OpenIL (headers and libs) or an executable made by including OpenIL headers and linking to its libs. The executable should be entirely free of any obligations but the source may very well be controlled by the LGPL. You may want to look into the licensing terms for OpenGL itself which states:

quote:Application developers do not need to license the OpenGL API

http://www.sgi.com/software/opengl/license.html

Hope this helps.