On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: > Hi all, > What is the difference between GPL + Harbour exception and LGPL?
Static linking. For LGPL libraries you have to give final user a chance to upgrade the LGPL part of binaries, f.e. because some serious bugs in the LGPL code was fixed. You can make it in few different ways, f.e. you can deliver on user request shared linked binaries so user can easy replace used LGPL libraries. Of course it does not mean that you have to assist in this process. It's user job to create compatible version LGPL libraries and replace them if he wants. > I reckon LGPL wasn't nearly available when Harbour was born, so we > had to come up with our own solution, but since now LGPL is around, LGPL is much older then Harbour. > shouldn't we consider switching our unique license to this standard one? See above. > For me these look fundamentally the same, and I'm ready to > transition my own copyrighted material to LGPL if this thinking is > right. (of course I mean only current GPL+exception parts). > Using a standard license could probably help in the acceptance and > evaluation of this project by 3rd parties (even Linux distros). > Any opinions or insight on this? I agree but in some cases it may force distributing two binaries shared and static ones. In general I prefer shared libraries but it does not mean that I do not see situations when static ones are easier to use, f.e. due two insufficient final user knowledge. best regards, Przemek _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
