Thanks much. I just wanted to be sure I figured you would set it up this way, but I just wanted to be sure because I had heard stories about other situations.
Hank On 6/11/06, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nicolas, > > I am wondering if you know what the licensing implications are for > lpgl (I think this is neko's license) as it relates to embedding neko > into a piece of hardware. Does this mean that all of the code in the > hardware that calls or is somehow a part of the binary must also be > open sourced? > > I vaguely remember that at least one of these open source licenses > does require that, and that there is this guy who was going around > suing the home router makers because they were including some open > source in their boxes and not open sourcing their entire code in the > router. > > I am building a device where its main logic will come from haxe code. > There will also be some C code that handles i/o and screen drivers, > which will probably not be that proprietary, but I really dont want to > be responsible for publishing any code (its just a pain) and I > *really* dont want to publish my haxe code as it is really the secret > sauce to my application. > > Please let me know your thoughts on this. > > Hank LGPL means that as long as you only link you're safe. But if you modify Neko (for example add some flags to compile on your hardware or some optimizations) then you need to make your changes public. The haXe code itself, in its source or binary form, is not tainted by any license. Nicolas -- Neko : One VM to run them all (http://nekovm.org)
-- Neko : One VM to run them all (http://nekovm.org)
