On 4/5/06, Jens Halm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO i would discount LGPL altogether, and go for one of the
> better written licenses such as apache or MPL, both of which allow
> the use of libraries in commercial (closed source) applications, but
> prohibit the extension of such libraries unless the extensions carry
> the same open source license, thus protecting the 'open sourceness'
> of the library.
That's not accurate. While MPL seems in fact to be similar to LGPL,
the Apache license is very different in that it includes almost no
restrictions on the usage of the code. You don't have to release the
code of Apache licensed software that you modify.
Jens
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Bateman - Flash Product Manager
BBC News Interactive
Tel: 0208 6248692
Mob: 07714 329073
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
