On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 01:57:23AM -0400, Byron A Jeff wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 07:14:02AM +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > OK BAJ, I re-read the LGPL one more time :)
>
> > So I backtrack my objections to LGPL-ed embedded libraries to the fact
> > that you can not use such a library to create a realy closed
> > pay-per-chip product.
>
> Why not? The rebuild right is annoying. Let's set it aside for now under
> the guise of even if you can build new firmware, there's no way to get it
> into the product.
>
> So what's left? If you use LGPL libraries unmodified, then the combo of
> yourcode+lgpllib firmware is yours to do what you wish. You can charge pay
> per chip.  You can restrict distribution. You can relicense it. Folks can't
> copy it.  Presuming that yourcode is closed source and your own clean code,
> then the only right a user has is to sell the product. Nothing more. Nothing
> less.

Clarify. The user can resell the hardware you sold to them...

BAJ

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