On Wednesday 07 July 2010 11:25:42 Craig James wrote: > On 7/7/10 8:20 AM, Geoffrey Hutchison wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > >> LGPL requires not only availability of sources, but also possibility to > >> relink application with newer version of library. If static linking is > >> used, COMP will need to provide needed object files and instructions > >> for building > > > > Right, I guess that's true. > > Only if they ask. They never do. > We come across this a lot, and Kitware is largely a BSD company. The BSD has no ambiguity, but on a personal level I have always preferred the LGPL license for libraries. That said, commercially speaking, BSD is easier to deal with and use in large projects. As a matter of policy we will only use BSD licensed code in many of our open source projects here. It makes it easier when working with both industrial and government partners, among other reasons.
The large concerns with the LGPL are the restriction on static linking, as well as requirements it places on allowing things like reverse engineering. Depending on the use case, these can cause alarm bells in some companies. It is one of the few remaining reasons to purchase a commercial Qt license for example (which is dual licensed LGPL/commercial still). Just my experience as someone who has (and does) sit on both sides of this particular fence. Marcus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
