Re: [Fxruby-users] Licensing question - I can make money, right?
Status: Inactive
Brought to you by:
lyle
From: Christopher S. <csa...@pa...> - 2004-02-02 01:58:28
|
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 05:39, Rich wrote: > I've looked into the FXRuby license (LGPL) and the FOX license (modified > LGPL). > > Other than that - a program using FXRuby would have the OpenGL file > included, which has no license for software developers... > > ... so - those are all of the licenses - right? No, on Linux you forget the LGPL licence on the glibc library which underlies the whole kit and kaboodle. > If I understand the LGPL correctly, I can use LGPL'd work in my standalone > EXE and not have to license my work under LGPL at all. No, not necessarily, it depends. > I can close the source for all of my work - right? Yes, of _your_ work, but not that of the other contributors if they have licenced their work under the LGPL. The spirit of the LGPL is that it allows you to distribute your work secretively, yet at the same time it gives the end user the right to upgrade the LGPL licenced libraries to which your work is linked. This, in effect, means that you have to distribute your work as a binary which dynamically loads the LGPL licenced libraries as shared object libraries. Static linking the whole application in a GNU environment is not allowed. In practice this only applies on Linux and if using cygwin under Windows, because on the other platforms the libc library is either a commercially licenced product, e.g. on MS Windows, or is subject to the BSD licence which allows you to do more or less whatever you want, provided you don't (ab)use the name of the Regents or other contributors in advertising. -- Sincerely etc. Christopher Sawtell NB. This PC runs Linux. If you find a virus apparently from me, it has forged the e-mail headers on someone else's machine. Please do not notify me when this occurs. Thanks. |