scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> Surely your company would pay up for such issues?
> >
> >  I didn't ask on behalf of my company nor because we would currently have
> > a project where an LGPL library is required.

> But the fact you mentioned you worked for a software development company 
> looks a bit dodgy (I had assumed it was questions you wanted answered for 
> your job too).

  I suppose I should have kept that information secret rather than
carelessly mention it (as a kind of intro of why I talk about the iPhone
later in the email), but how should I had known? It's not like the FSF
prominently advertises in their webpages that if you say you are working
for a company they won't answer your questions for free.

  For the record, I replied to them with a completely honest and truthful
description of my situation (in other words, I did not ask on behalf of my
company nor because of any current work project, and I myself have published
a significant library under the LGPL (which is why the details of the license
interest me), but it's a real possibility that some time in the future there
might be a need to use some LGPL library for some commercial project as well),
but they haven't replied anything.

  I suppose the implied answer is "tough luck; you work for the enemy and
thus we aren't going to help you".

> Why not just ask them again from a different email account, but without 
> mentioning you are a professional software developer this time?  You might 
> want to reword the questions significantly and split them up to come from 
> different people.

  Yeah, that wouldn't sound suspicious at all.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message