On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Geoffrey Hutchison <[email protected]> wrote: > The only requirement of the LGPL is that COMP must distribute the code for > LIB, or optionally whatever portion of LIB they actually use. For exempt, if > they only use PMRCODE, then they only need to make that available *upon > request*. Now some companies (e.g., RedHat) make all their GPL and LGPL code > available. But technically, COMP only needs to respond to e-mail or written > requests.
Moreover, COMP is allowed to redirect to upstream for source and building instructions as long as upstream provides the same version as COMP uses (and as long as upstream exists). > Also, if COMP makes code changes to LIB or PMRCODE or whatever, they must > make these available to the community. Here too, COMP can decide to place those changes in the upstream bug tracker, and refer to that. > The main difference between the LGPL and BSD licenses is that the LGPL > requires COMP to make the code and any modifications available upon request > to the community. The BSD allows Microsoft to take the TCP/IP stack and not > distribute any changes they make. Likewise, MIT/BSD will allows COMP to cherry-pick code bits from the library and use it outside the scope of library. Egon -- Post-doc @ Uppsala University Proteochemometrics / Bioclipse Group of Prof. Jarl Wikberg Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/ Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
