In article <3c50e445@news.povray.org>,
 "Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> IIRC, the LGPL should work.  The way I read it (and I hope someone 
> corrects me if I'm wrong), you can make a commercial product 
> available using something LGPL'd, but you have to provide object 
> binaries to link against newer versions of whatever LGPL'd stuff is 
> there (though you don't have to guarantee compatability with future 
> versions).  Now, as I see it, dynamic linking already provides this 
> functionality so, if you distribute your program in a form that uses 
> dynamic linking, you're ok.  Although, I'm not a lawyer, so I'd like 
> someone to correct me if I'm wrong...

Well, it looks interesting, but I'm not sure how it would be better or 
worse than any of the others...
Does anyone have any reasons to *avoid* a particular license? Any input 
at all? I think I've had a total of 3 suggestions, for 3 different 
licenses...the Artistic License, GPL, and LGPL.
The main two licenses I'm considering are the Artistic License and the 
LGPL, and I'm leaning strongly toward the Artistic License, which seems 
generally simpler and more understandable.

-- 
 -- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>

Post a reply to this message