At 11:13 PM -0600 on 7/7/99, Scott Raney wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
>> or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
>> you. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
>> code. If you link other code with the library, you must provide
>> complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them
>> with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling
>> it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
>
>If you're seriously considering using the LGPL, you should note that
>this particular condition would apply to all standalones anyone builds
>with OC. That is, the developer of any OC product would have to be
>willing to do things like distribute their application as separate
>stacks so that the end user could replace the engine. Not only that,
>but they'd have to tell the user this, which means that it would be
>impossible to pass the application off as anything but an OC
>application. I'm pretty sure that neither of these would be very
>popular with commercial application developers.
I know. The GPL vairants spread like viruses, which is why I'm probably
going to drop the LGPL.
