On Jul 9, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > But this will require shipping build system to the user, which may be > inappropriate. Also, shipped object files are easier to decompile than > executable
I think we're *way* off topic here. Suffice to say that Peter shared some details about the identity of COMP for his particular situation, and I can say that they already distribute stripped object files to users. I admit my mistaken interpretation of the LGPL: there is a difference between static and dynamic linking. However, I keep my original point-of-view: while there are benefits to both the LGPL and BSD, I don't think Peter needs to bend over backwards to relicense his code. If COMP really feels they need a new license (vs. LGPL), they can contact Peter and the copyright holders and negotiate a proprietary license. The Qt toolkit and Nokia do this, quite successfully -- it's either GPL, LGPL, or proprietary. On Jul 9, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Craig James wrote: > The burden that LGPL puts on developers is really pretty minimal. I couldn't have said it better myself. Cheers, -Geoff --- Prof. Geoffrey Hutchison Department of Chemistry University of Pittsburgh tel: (412) 648-0492 email: [email protected] web: http://hutchison.chem.pitt.edu/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
