summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Build/source/libs/zziplib/zziplib-0.13.58/docs/copying.htm
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Build/source/libs/zziplib/zziplib-0.13.58/docs/copying.htm')
-rw-r--r--Build/source/libs/zziplib/zziplib-0.13.58/docs/copying.htm113
1 files changed, 113 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Build/source/libs/zziplib/zziplib-0.13.58/docs/copying.htm b/Build/source/libs/zziplib/zziplib-0.13.58/docs/copying.htm
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..2f0c8c96d79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Build/source/libs/zziplib/zziplib-0.13.58/docs/copying.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+<section> <date> 2004 </date>
+<h2> COPYING - license information </h2> the public license terms
+
+<P>
+ The zziplib is a small library that allows for some parts of
+ obfuscation. This is very handy in commercial projects which tend
+ to incorporate a copy into their source tree. And with
+ <a href="zzip-xor.htm">obfuscation</a> it is often advisable
+ to staticlink the zziplib part and `strip` the symbols from
+ the resulting binary - in order to obfuscate the usage of a
+ standard library for semi-`encryption` of data files.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+ In the past I have been modifying the original LGPL license
+ with a text that allows staticlinking thereby taking over a
+ few paragraphs from the MPL as restrictions to do so, just to
+ defend against improper usage. However I kept being asked
+ legalese questions since most people do not want to interpret
+ added text either and on their own without a lawyer. However
+ that accounts to me as well.
+</P>
+<P>
+ The public license(s) are simply there to protect me and
+ my work, none of this is fixed and it is neither the only
+ possible way to get hold of a proper license. You can
+ always contact me to negotiate a special one if you do
+ need so. In most cases I will just say okay and you get
+ it for free, perhaps after some presentations I will
+ ask for som tax-reductable compensation sent to
+ a wellfare organisation (never me!).
+</P>
+<P>
+ A last hint from a friend did make me think as well, as
+ that the whole point of using standard public licenses
+ is to protect against the need to use your own lawyers
+ in the case that someone breaks the license rules. If
+ one uses a standard license then it is in the interest
+ of that big organization XY that the license will be
+ enforced and that it will be shown valid in all courts.
+ At the time of writing, no opensource license has
+ ever been discussed to an end in a court trial.
+</P>
+<P>
+ That's why at last, I decided to change the COPYING
+ details once again - and start shipping under a dual
+ MPL / LGPL license where each of them is separate
+ and restrictions apply alternatively. Remember that
+ each license is non-exclusive anyway, and I can give
+ out as many licenses as I want, here we have one as
+ MPL, then we have one as LGPL, and perhaps you ask me
+ for a third text to send you over. The public ones
+ are just there for you as a free choice which you can
+ pick without negotiations or a fee.
+</P>
+<P>
+ And yes, you will be on established legal grounds as
+ long as you restrict your usage of the library to the
+ details contained in either COPYING text. And better
+ yet, the legal possibilities have been discussed
+ a few hundred times before. You will surely find
+ good answers on the internet as well to guide you
+ to decisions in your company whether zziplib may
+ be adopted for a specific task.
+</P>
+<P>
+ The sources themselves are sent out under a dual license,
+ with both MPL and LGPL license options, and as long as
+ the MPL part is not removed then the recpient of some
+ modified sources will be entitled to the same choice
+ among the public licenses of LGPL / MPL. Note that some
+ example sources are given away under the ZLIB license
+ which is nothing more than asking for nice behavior
+ which should have been the case even without such a text.
+ <small><small>(However, it is just a fact that some people
+ happen to behave anti-social especially under pressure of
+ capitalist needs, said to lower the risks for commercial
+ success/failure of a company. You have to enforce good
+ behavior or it will be "forgotten". With a license it is
+ not just an error, it is a risk in itself to forget about it)
+ </small></small>
+</P>
+<P>
+ As for staticlinking, let us explore that a bit - there has
+ been a debate that the LGPL warrants in fact the freedom of
+ the final recipient as you must give him the original or
+ modified sources of zziplib, to allow them to modify that
+ part again, and then (re-)link to your own parts. Your own
+ parts may come in the form of precompiled objects without
+ sources (as opposed to the GPL restrictions). In here, it
+ is simply easier to use a dynamic linker that does the
+ re-linking job at startup-time of the whole project instead
+ to provide a makefile and linkage descriptions to let the
+ user do the staticlink it into a combined executable object.
+ The latter however is often needed for embedded environments
+ and it is quite of the original motivation to ask for a
+ staticlink option where in fact the LGPL does allow it anyway
+ as long as you ship all parts separatly as well.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+ The MPL defines the area of a combined work a bit differently,
+ in a way it derives some ideas from BSD'ish licenses. This
+ part does more care to protect the `Intellectual Properties`
+ of the original developers. It does ask to prominently show
+ off that you have gone to link with the work of someone else
+ in your project. Take special note of <em>"3.5 Required Notices"</em>,
+ <em>"3.6 Distribution of Executable Versions"</em> and
+ <em>"3.7 Larger Works"</em> here. Or read a lawyer text on
+ the legal result of the whole license.
+</P>
+
+</section>