Byron Jeff wrote:
> The likely requirements for a license that you want are as follows:
> 
> 1) Anyone can use the library in their product without having to release
> their source.
> 
> 2) Anyone that improves the library is required to release the improvements
> under the same license as the original library.
> 
> Now technically the LGPL meets both of those requirements. However it falls
> down when it adds what is known as the relink requirement:
> 
> 3) The end user must have sufficient resources to update the library to a
> newer version if they so choose.
> 
> This is what falls down in embedded systems environments where usually the
> combination of library and application occurs at the source level. So if
> you want to update the library, then you need the source to the
> application.
> 
> What is needed is a license that is good on 1 and 2 but does not require 3.
> None of the contenders so far meet all those requirements. The GPL fails on
> 1. The BSD fails on 2. The LGPL requires 3 which in general boils down to
> failing 1.

ISTR that the Mozilla Public License succeeds on all these counts - but 
my memory is not to be trusted.
-- 
Timothy J. Weber
http://timothyweber.org
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist