somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4b6a1dd5@news.povray.org...

> >   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 understand this to mean that if I had lied they could perhaps have
> > answered my questions free of charge.

> Wouldn't the advice then be inapplicable to your case?

  The LGPL terms don't change depending on whether the software using
the LGPL library is proprietary/commercial or not. It applies equally to
all software.

> >   And yes, they explicitly refuse to answer the questions:
> >
> >   "If you do not want to pay for this service, I can only suggest
> > you carefully review the resources we provide about licensing at
> > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html> and refer to your legal
> > counsel."
> >
> >   Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.

> Why? They promote free software. Not free legal services, nor free lunch.
> IOW, I don't expect them to provide me with a free lunch if I knock on their
> door.

  The implication was that if I had claimed that I'm making free software,
they could have answered my questions for free. That feels a bit biased,
and thus wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message