diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Build/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/zziplib/docs/copying.htm')
-rw-r--r-- | Build/source/texk/web2c/luatexdir/zziplib/docs/copying.htm | 113 |
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> |