summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/Build/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/zziplib/docs/copying.htm
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'Build/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/zziplib/docs/copying.htm')
-rw-r--r--Build/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/zziplib/docs/copying.htm113
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 113 deletions
diff --git a/Build/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/zziplib/docs/copying.htm b/Build/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/zziplib/docs/copying.htm
deleted file mode 100644
index 2f0c8c96d79..00000000000
--- a/Build/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/zziplib/docs/copying.htm
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,113 +0,0 @@
-<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>