Re: [CLucene-dev] Re: license (clarification)

[<rg...@sd...>]

>>>>> "Max" == Max Khesin <ma...@to...> writes:
Max> 
Max> Hi Rob,
Max> I am not a legalist, but after looking at lgpl it appears that
Max> any source modifications have to be published, too. That's the
Max> part that is not good for a proprietary project. Apache has no
Max> such restictions.

Here is how I plan to go about selling a proprietary software that
uses CLucene as a library:

1) The "free trial" or "download version" of the software will have a
   link to the source forge CLucene site somewhere on the page.  Not
   hidden or in fine print, but somewhere below the "Download Now"
   button there will be a paragraph that says something like "This
   software uses a Free Software library called CLucene, and many of
   it's features would not be available without that project."  It has
   to say the version number.  ( If I have changes that aren't in the
   official tree, then I have to host the tar file of source myself,
   which I regard as mild encouragement to keep the project from
   splitting, but not too burdensome if I have to do it. )

2) Any registered version obtained by download will have a similar
   link.

3) Any version sold or given away via CDROM will have the tar file of
   source on the CD, and a README that tells you were it came from and
   that the latest version is on sourceforge.

Basically, any method you use to obtain my software, the CLucene
source will be available via the same method.

That should be enough to satisfy the LGPL.  There is also something
about a written offer to provide source code, I can add that to any
README files if all my documentation is electronic and add it in the
legalese at the end of the printed manual if there is one.

--Rob

P.S.  If you want to get better advice than I can give on these
issues, I recommend the gnu.misc.discuss newsgroup.