On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Some people use ordinary GPL on libraries with the intent of crippling
competing commercial reuse (since any competitors have to release
their source and competitors wouldn't want to do that).
Really? That's not wise.
How would the choice of license affect the *legal* determination of whether
the resulting work is or is not a derivative work for which source code must
be disclosed?
The choice of license affects whether source code must be disclosed at all.
If the library was under the LGPL, the competitor would not have to provide
source.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
