Since copyright applies to expression and not algorhyms, I don't see how this 'brain pollution' argument applies unless the programmer concerned has a photographic memory.
On Sunday 17 February 2002 11:23, David Laight wrote: > > I haven't contributed any code so I will not state my opinion (but you > > can guess that) hehe. > > Ah, but if I read the issues correctly, that isn't the problem! > If the LGPL license were in force it would matter whether you > had READ any of the code. > > If you see a small fragment of code in LGPL source (even something > relatively trivial like some odd list handling routine) and later > write the same (or very similar) code in some commercial software, > the LGPL license might be construed to apply to the entire > commercial software product - there is no way this is acceptable. > > David
