I agree with you completely. It is not a problem, just a frustration. The licensing of the library will in effect be determining how I build portions of an application (specifically making them more complex, even if not significantly so), which is my only gripe. Just seems silly that licensing would drive the build process and code (especially since I would have zero objections to releasing the port of the code). Oh well...
Dan
On 4/4/06, David Rorex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see any problem here.
1. Compile the AS classes into their own swf, say "JSON.swf"
2. Your main app is "Main.swf", and does not have any JSON classes compiled into it.
3. At runtime, " Main.swf" will loadMovie (in LGPL terms, 'dynamically link with') "JSON.swf". The end user then will have the option of replacing JSON.swf with a newer version of the library, they could even write a replacement JSON.swf that does something else if they wanted. You'd only be obligated to release source code for the JSON.swf, but NOT for Main.swf
In my opinion, this fulfills the license requirements and protects your proprietary code. However, I'm not a lawyer, and I have a feeling most/all people on this list are not either. If the author of the JSON code goes after you, and everything I said was wrong, and a court agrees that the above is wrong, worst case scenario is you have to remove the JSON code and rewrite it from scratch. But I think that is very unlikely.
-David ROn 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
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
