Apparently lawyers are not comfortable, at least in North America, with the LGPL 2.1 license has it has too many grey areas loose to interpretation...
They generally ask their clients to stay away from LGPL 2.1 softwares and libraries. They like more "permissive" licenses. Sent from my iPhone 6 > On Sep 27, 2015, at 12:05, Daniel Naber <daniel.na...@languagetool.org> wrote: > >> On 2015-09-27 14:07, Andre Couture wrote: >> >> Could the license (LGPL 2.1) be partially responsible for this? > > I can't think of a real use case that the current license prohibits. If > you use the HTTP server or command line tool of LT, the license doesn't > matter anyway (as long as it's open source). If you use it as a library > from Java, you're free to integrate LT into your (commercial) product > and you can distribute LT as a part of your product. > > Regards > Daniel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Languagetool-devel mailing list > Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
