Warp wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   Most LGPL libraries out there are not owned by the FSF. It's not like it's
> *their* loss.

Technically true. For fanatics, false.

>   (Besides, the whole point of the LGPL license is for the libraries to be
> usable in proprietary software. They explicitly state it as such.)

Yes, but they don't like it. :-)

>   It's not like I asked for legally binding consultation per se. I just
> wanted some clarifications.

In some countries, that *is* legally binding consultation.

>>>   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. :-)
> 
>   But they should know their *own* license. 

I'm sure *they* know the answer.

> Or is it so that they cannot
> formulate official opinions on their own license without asking their
> lawyers first?

I'm sure they already asked their lawyers. They're not going to have their 
lawyers work for you to free.

Having come thru many years of having rich people asking me to work for them 
for free, I can fully understand that.

>   If they don't want to get "abused" like that, then why did they create
> the LGPL license in the first place?

Because the world doesn't work the way they'd want it to. It's the same 
reason they specifically exempt the GCC runtime from the GPL: if they 
didn't, someone would make a proprietary compiler (or even an open one with 
such an exemption) and GCC wouldn't get used by programmers good enough to 
get paid for their work.

Just because they resent it doesn't mean they don't have to. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message