Perhaps we should ask them to do one for actionscript.
Will be interesting to see what they say.
Putting aside the technical and legal stuff LGPL means the following to me. You can use this code, but if you modify it, its got to be available as open source. I assume this is why the majority of people pick the license, at least that's why it was chosen for red5. I prefer BSD style since it doesn't throw up these questions.
-- Luke
On 4/5/06, 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
