Warp wrote:
>   Well, LGPL software can be used in commercial software with only minor
> restrictions.

Relatively speaking, yes. But that's why they call it the "Lesser" license. :-)

>   Their response said: "I understand from your description that you are a
> proprietary software developer. If I am wrong in this understanding, please
> correct me. [...] We offer our services by paid consultation to non-free
> software developers."

I can sympathize. If you're going to get paid for using what they gave for 
free, then you can afford to pay them to find out what they mean.

Now, if you're developing on a proprietary platform but you're going to give 
the software away for free, I'd suspect they might be more willing to help.

> and refer to your legal counsel."

Yeah, I'm surprised they didn't say that in the first place, free or not. 
Otherwise, they have lawyers working for you for free.

>   Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.

Maybe you live in a country where people don't get in trouble for giving 
free legal advice. :-)

> Craft a somewhat ambiguous software usage license on the basis of
> freedom, and then outright refuse to clarify it without monetary
> compensation, and seemingly only because the person who asked the
> question happens to be a non-free software developer.

Seems fair. you're asking them to work for you for free, so you can safely 
use their freely-offered software, to make money that you won't give any of 
to them. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message