On 7 Aug 2012, at 18:21, Matthias Melcher wrote: >> Harking back to MoSync, I wonder if fltk's modified LGPL would be compatible >> with their GPLv2 requirement for free use? > > MoSync really does look interesting.
Yes, I think so. > The license is no problem at all since we would only use MoSync as a tool and > use their API as a socket. I will look further into that. Sure; I think our (the fltk lib) use of the library would be ok, since it is all open source: my worry would be that our users might be "inconvenienced", if they want to use fltk in a non-open app, and we bring in a dependency on a GPL'd code base that does not have our static linking exemptions and so forth. Then if they wanted to go ahead they'd be forced into buying a MoSync commercial license... Or maybe it's OK, I'm not at all clear on how the codebase would link to MoSync, though since it is GPL rather than LGPL I guess it would be tricky in some usage cases. _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list fltk@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
