brianchina60221: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Stefan Monnier > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That still leaves anyone free to use LGPL if they want to, but please > >> don't assume that it allows commercial use by all potential users. > > > > It *does* allow commercial use. Your example just shows that some > > people may decide not to take advantage of it, based not on problematic > > restrictions but just on paranoia. > > I was confused and worried about this subject lately, too; at some > point in the future, I may want to ship closed-source commercial > software that uses various LGPL libraries. But it doesn't seem to be > as big a problem as I imagined. My understanding is that I can satisfy > the requirements of the LGPL by dynamically linking, and that's > already happening. Is there something else to worry about? I'd be in > violation if I shipped something statically linked, but cabal doesn't > seem inclined to do that by default.
And, importantly, the vast, vast majority of Haskell code is BSD licensed, and the licenses are prominently displayed. -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
