From: Lan B. <la...@fa...> - 2006-07-14 20:53:47
|
IANAL, but that is my memory. That the LGPL is there precisely so that GPL-type libraries can be used in commercial products without restriction. Improve and distribute the library itself and you must distribute the code. Use the lib and you may keep the code for the product proprietary. I personally consider that very reasonable. On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:27:40PM -0700, Gary Kunkel wrote: > > OK > > So it is better to keep it as LGPL? > > then the apps can be sold for commercial purposes? > > > Derry Bryson <der...@gm...> wrote:Actually it's the other way around and putting it under the GPL restricts commercial use unless they want to GPL their app. Any program that links to a GPL library, must be under the GPL license. > > Derry > > > On 7/14/06, Gary Kunkel <gbo...@ya...> wrote: > It's been a while, and I've slept quite a few nights since I did this, > > but I think I changed the LGPL to the GPL license based on reading a recomendation on the FSF (keepers of the GPL and LGPL) website. > > My interpretation was the GPL was less restrictive than the LGPL. > > > Gary -- Lan Barnes Linux Guy, SCM Specialist Tcl/Tk Enthusiast For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise. - Benjamin Franklin |