--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:35 PM
> On May 13, 10:07 pm, Lawrence
> D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> > How exactly does the LGPL lead to a requirement to
> “relink”?
>
> I think this might be a misconception, but I'm not 100%
> sure. Since
> Ed gives his customers full source code, there may not be
> the
> requirement to directly provide the ability to relink,
> because "The
> “Corresponding Application Code” for a Combined Work
> means the object
> code and/or source code for the Application." and section
> 4d0 requires
> you to "permit the user to recombine or relink" where
> "recombine"
> isn't defined directly (perhaps in the underlying GPL?)
But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them, they are
now in violation. I do not want to put my client in this position.
When using the GPL or LGPL you can do anything you want as long as you do not
let anyone else use your work, but if you let someone else have a copy of you
work you are putting them in a position where that can easily/inadvertently
violate the law. I do not want to put clients in legal jeopardy, so I do not
use GPL, or LGPLed code.
I do not claim that using the GLP is immoral, nor deny others right to use it.
I just feel the risks out way the benefits for me.
-EdK
Ed Keith
e_...@yahoo.com
Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
