2

Given a LGPL'ed grammar file, is the source generated by a compiler-compiler for the grammar a derivative works? What about if the grammar file was modified before it was given as input to the compiler-compiler? There isn't any linking, at least not in the conventional sense.

If the output is a derivitive work, must I then simply provide the (modified) grammer sources making any best efforts to ensure the grammar will function without dependencies imposed by the program/library using it? Or are there more restrictions which must be resolved?

DAC
  • 1,769
  • 1
  • 20
  • 32
  • Which version of LGPL are we talking about? – ShaMan-H_Fel Feb 20 '12 at 14:12
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about licensing or legal issues, not programming or software development. [See here](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/274963/questions-about-licensing/274964#274964) for details, and the [help] for more. – JasonMArcher Jun 03 '15 at 04:09

3 Answers3

0

The best answer, and which everyone should be giving you is as follows:

Contact a lawyer

X-Istence
  • 16,324
  • 6
  • 57
  • 74
  • A laywer would be able to answer the question, but seems a little drastic for a scenario which has almost definitely happened before and to which I would appreciate knowing the resolution. – DAC Mar 06 '12 at 10:49
  • 1
    The thing is, even if it has happened before YOU need to go talk with a lawyer to get legal advice. We can't give you an answer that has any legal standing. The question becomes, what license is the transformative work that was created from the original work under, especially with an intermediary parsing the original and spitting out the end result. We can't give you advice on what laws apply in your jurisdiction, we can't tell you where you'd stand in a court of law... only a lawyer with domain knowledge can do that! – X-Istence Mar 06 '12 at 10:59
  • Checking with a laywer of every jurisdiction an international program may be sold in to determine if a work is a derivative, is not a practical answer. I am simply looking for a non-binding statement that would help me understand my situation, for example: assume that the output is derivative and therefore do X, Y and Z to ensure you conform in most cases to the LGPL. – DAC Mar 06 '12 at 11:56
  • 1
    Welcome to the world of international business. Generally consulting with a lawyer in the jurisdiction you reside is good enough. The thing about non-binding statements is that they are just that, statements. They can be complete misinformation, and you may act upon it thereby causing yourself to end up in legal trouble. That is why licensing is so damn hard. You may want to see if you can get free advice from the FSF (since it is their license) or the EFF (although I am not sure they will). That is your best bet! – X-Istence Mar 06 '12 at 16:57
  • 2X-Istence: Enough of this. If he wanted a bulletproof strategy to cover his ass, he wouldn't bother wasting time here. Since he's asking with no regard to jurisdictions, he definitely wants to know what licenses and their FAQs say on this matter and that's what he's going to get. – ivan_pozdeev Mar 12 '12 at 06:45
  • @ivan_pozdeev: I find your reply to me very condescending. My reply is just as valid as yours is. Technically it is the only valid advice so far in this thread. A layman's interpretation may vary from that of a lawyers. The GPLv3 is a very complicated piece of legal document. – X-Istence Mar 12 '12 at 09:42
0

Disclaimer: IANAL and if you want something "official" you should talk to one. That said...

A common-sense approach says that yes, the result of compilation of something that is compilable is a derivative work. For instance, the compiled version of an LGPL library is still LGPL - you can't say that you obtained a compiled version of the library and never compiled it yourself and somehow dodge providing the source code that way.

Thus, the LGPL would require you to distribute the (potentially modified) source of the original LGPL work, such that if an individual wanted to further modify the work, they could.

Amber
  • 507,862
  • 82
  • 626
  • 550
0

1) Since the grammar contains the essence of the resulting code, it definitely belongs to "all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities" and is not a part of "the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work". In brief, LGPLv3 applies.

So, you need to convey the "Minimal Corresponding Source" (the one used to build the version in the Combined Work) according to sec.4 d) 0) or GPLv3 sec.6, mark it as modified if it is and possibly include custom tools if required by GPL's definition of "Corresponding Source". (In general, as sec.0 says, LGPLv3 is effectively GPLv3 with a few additional provisions.)

2) It might be a derivative work of the generator used as well if the latter inserts parts of itself into the code (see FSF FAQ#Can I use GPL-covered tools... to compile...?) - check the generator's workings and licensing terms if necessary. If it is, you'll have to satisfy both LGPLv3 and the generator's terms that apply to the results of its work.

ivan_pozdeev
  • 33,874
  • 19
  • 107
  • 152
  • In general, just take your time and study GPL and LGPL. It's a very cunnigly composed piece of work imbued with the power of light :^). I learned GPLv3 while revising a translation of it into my native language. You may want to do the same if this is applicable to you :^) . – ivan_pozdeev Mar 12 '12 at 08:10