Many thanks Andrew - this is very helpful. A few interspersed comments
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Andrew Dalke <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> PMR:
> > COMP's argument is that although the LGPL does
> > allow for inclusion into commercial closed source projects you either
> have to
> > distribute the LGPL'd portion as a dynamically linked library
> > which the end user could replace if desired or a API-based rebuild
> system.
>
> I think it's quite clear from the license that the proprietary company
> is correct. (I'm not sure what "API-based rebuild system" means, but it
> sounds close enough.)
>
I cannot clarify further as I don't understand the phrase in greater depth
>
> PMR:
> > I am not so sure I should change my licence because it is a
> > better business model for a downstream commercial exploiter.
>
> The right term here is "proprietary" not "commercial." The FSF
> points out that you can (and should!) sell free software.
>
PMR - thanks for the correction. And to clarify - I am strongly in favour of
third parties selling my Open software.
>
> --
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
