On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:11:36AM -0500, D. Jay Newman wrote:
> > > Frankly I'm not a big fan of the GPL, preferring the LGPL instead. I
> > > feel that the GPL is a bit too strict and can lead to a lack
> > > of sharing.
> >
> > You'd better re-read the LGPL, it does not allow (much) more sharing
> > than GPL. I have been looking for a more appropriate license for my
> > stuff (including the Jal libraries) too, but have not found one yet.
>
> As far as I can read, it allows my stuff to be linked into other code
> without requiring a source level distribution of the other code. It does
> require that *my* code be kept free.

That's close to the mark. However there are two important caveats:

1) Your codebase must provide a mechanism for relinking with newer versions
of the library. With applications software this usually isn't a big deal
because the library is dynamically linked anyway. However in an embedded
environment, this could in fact be problematic.

2) Those rules do not apply to the library itself. If you modify and
redistribute the actual LGPL code, it behaves the same as GPL code i.e.
you have to release the source to any changes to the library.

>
> I will reread the relevent files when I'm awake, as it's after 2:30 am
> here.  :)

You see the caveats when you do.

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body