On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:06:02 PM UTC-5, Colin Fleming wrote:
> > I don't see why a company would have any problem at all with *using*
> > LGPL'd software, even in a product. However, I can see the possible
> > complaints if they wanted to *modify* it and then distribute their
modified
> > version (since that would then require distributing the modified source
> > along with it).
At least one company (mine at the time) had a problem with using LGPL
> software because of the clause where you explicitly allow reverse
> engineering of your product in order to use a different version of the LGPL
> library. {snip}
>
For what it's worth, I find that passage of the LGPL ("4. Combined Works")
somewhat difficult to understand. It *seems* to me that it's saying:
although your combined work may be non-free,
* you can't restrict modification of the LGPL library contained therein,
and
* you can't restrict users from reverse engineering any modifications
you've made to the LGPL library contained therein.
Where that 2nd point seems redundant to me, since, if you're distributing a
modified version of an LGPL'd lib, you're already required to also
distribute the modified source of it as well.
-- John
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
