SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [chat] LGPL license w/o GPL infection
- To: slug-chat@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [chat] LGPL license w/o GPL infection
- From: Andre Pang <ozone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun Oct 14 23:53:03 2001
- User-agent: Mutt/1.3.22i
On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 11:38:24PM +1000, invisible ink wrote:
> My advice here is that the LGPL may indeed fit - if the users of the library
> are willing to deal with the extra details that may involve.
Unfortunately, I don't think the LGPL fits what I want :(.
Clause 6(a) seems to require that if you (statically) link a
LGPL'ed Library with another piece of Work, then you have to make
that Work available as source code or as object code. From what I
understand, they force the author of the Work to do this because
the object code can then be linked against modified versions of
the Library. The important point is that whoever writes this Work
must make available their code in object form, which is a
restriction I don't want to impose.
So I don't think the LGPL does what I want. I'm looking at the
Clarified Artistic License now, which seems promising, but I'm
going cross-eyed at the moment :).
#ozone/algorithm <ozone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - trust.in.love.to.save