On May 14, 9:10 am, Ed Keith <e_...@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: Picking a license > > To: python-l...@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.
Good point. I guess I haven't distributed something linked in a while (really just Python), so I tend to forget that aspect of it. Regards, Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
