"Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Ole Laursen" <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote in message
> news:87h### [at] bachcomposers...
> > > If someone is willing to invest the time/money to make a product that
> > > uses CSDL, I would have nothing against them charging for their
product
> > > or withholding the source code for their work, as long as they make
any
> > > changes/enhancements to CSDL available. People will only buy it if it
is
> > > better than the free stuff, and if the developer makes something
better,
> > > I'll thank them.
> >
> > Follow your heart. :-)
> >
> > But I think it would be wise to choose a GPL-compatible license.
>
> Sorry I'm jumping in the middle, but I only just started reading this
> thread...
>
> 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...
>
> ...Chambers
>
>

Post a reply to this message