diff options
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.htm | 113 |
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> |