> 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.

LGPL and GPL code can be used in commercial applications, but that
can have consequences for other code in that application!

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

Did you *link* any of your code *statically* against the libusb-win32? I
don't think so, their code is in a DLL, your code is in your
application. This (and Unix-style dynamically linked libararies (DLL!))
are exactly the (IMO only) circumstances where LGPL and GPL differ and
where LGPL does not contaminate your (dynamically) code.

> It seems that you know quite a lot of copyright related laws. ;-)

I had to, when I created Jal I wanted to know what it meant to release
code under various licenses. I still got it wrong: I intended the Jal
libraries to be used freely in applications, but released them under
LGPL. That still has to be corrected.

> I hope I could have a close relative who is a lawyer. ;-)

My father-in-law is a patent attorney. I am not so fond of software
patents, so I have interesting discussions with him.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 

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