On 12/18/05, Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> wrote:
> > Why not LGPL?
>
> Do you know LGPL? Probably not, or you would not ask :)
>
> If you combine LGPL-ed source with your own code to create an
> executeable for a product that you sell, you are forced to release your
> own code under LGPL. For a statically linked image (like for instance
> all PIC programs) LGPL is just as contaminating as GPL. The only
> difference is with dynamically linked applications.
>
> Wouter van Ooijen

Thanks for the explanation. I thought LGPL is quite okay since libusb-win32
is licensed under LGPL and it says that it is okay to be used in commercial
applications.

/********************************************************/
>From libusb-win32 web site:
http://libusb-win32.sourceforge.net/#license
"License
* The library (DLL) is distributed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General
Public License (LGPL).
* All other components (drivers, services, installer) are distributed under the
terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
* This license combination explicitly allows the use of this library
in commercial,
non Open Source applications. Read the licenses carefully and apply
all of their
requirements before including this library in a commercial application!"
/***********************************************/

Do you think libusb-win32 developers are mis-interpreting the LGPL license?

It seems that you know quite a lot of copyright related laws. ;-)
I hope I could have a close relative who is a lawyer. ;-)

Regards,
Xiaofan

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist