So that is interesting. If you don't distribute a program that makes use of LPGL libs (e.g. a downloadable EXE), but you provide a remote view (in this case a web) on a server that runs that program, then the license does not apply... Oh well I should just let the lawyers look into all these licenses, it's not my domain.
2009/2/25 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]> > * Peter Verswyvelen <[email protected]> [2009-02-25 23:15:24 +0100]: > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Peter Hercek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > * An LGPL library will force commercial users to release their source > code > > > only to the users of their program (which already bought it) and only > for > > > the purpose of recompiling with a newer version of the LGPL library. > > > > Does this also mean one can't make closed source but *free* software > > that uses LGPL libs? Since all users can then potentially request the > > source code? E.g. suppose Google would have used LGPL libraries to > > implement parts of their search engine... > > Google doesn't distribute code or binaries for google.com, though > (although there is the appliance stuff..) > -- > mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkmlx4YACgkQpNuXDQIV94rO6gCeLp5pkzXQkXIfFmwwCSWHQX3o > QscAn1ipd1Sft/K5QKiYtT9y15ssdnrk > =sZXJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
