I wonder if there is a license like that - allow to use a unchanged library without imposing anything on the using software, while changes to the library need to be published under LGPL . Or dosen't this make sense?
Thanks,
Ralf.
On 4/4/06, Dan Shryock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nicolas,
Thats what I was afraid of :(. It would be so much simpler if I could just write an app, and compile it as a single swf and not deal with technical issues due to licensing constraints. Oh well... thanks again to you and Ralf for your inputs.
DanOn 4/4/06, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> To me, this seems to imply that the situation which I mentioned above
> for C applications is correct. So my question is this: is compiling a
> swf which contains LGPL code the same thing as a statically linked
> library in terms of this license? If so, it seems to me that LGPL code
> must be used with more care in actionscript than in other languages
> (which lend themselves to easier use of dynamically linking).
>
> Dan
The linking exception of the LGPL is not so much easy to port to other
architectures than C. However I think that a loadMovie would clearly be
considered to be dynamic linking.
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
