Hi! On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:12:40PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:59:23AM -0800, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > > > > I don't really understand this part. > > > > The point is, you can use LGPL code as "starter code," and > > incrementally transform it, until you have only BSD code. The > > incrementality is important. Some licenses will prevent you from > > doing that. > > I didn't know that was allowed. Also, I think the legal issues would be > complicated. Think USL vs. BSDi and the recent SCO vs. IBM. Where does > the code come from, and who is to know for sure? > I wouldn't want to go anywhere near that.
Well, you put the LGPLed code in a separate source file. And you reimplement it in yet another source file, while gradually deleting the LGPLed functionality. There is one catch though. The BSD licence allows people to make proprietary changes to the code and does not mandate any code sharing with others. When you mix BSD and LGPLed code, at least the LGPLed code must be shared with others AND the binary must be distributed in such a way that the LGPLed code can be changed, compiled, and relinked into a functional binary. I am quite sure SCO won't sue anyone over Chicken sources. ;-) If your own code looks different enough and is structured different enough from the original code, then it is very hard to prove that it was stolen. I think that is the main reason why the FSF advices to make programs different from their original examples. Groetjes, Peter. _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users