On 5/30/06, Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the replies. I've no problem giving my client source code - > it is usually in the contract anyway. The key question for me is whether > my client then has to pass it on to its customers (99%+ of whom would > rather put their hand in a piranha fish tank than be given computer code).
If I'm not mistaken, you would have to make it available /publicly/ in the case of the GPL. That doesn't mean your client would have to send it to its customers, but that there would have to be a link to the code somewhere. > Thinking about it some more I think I can use the GCC compiler as a > precedent: it takes my proprietary code and open source libraries and > produces an EXE. Even though GCC is GPL I'm free to sell that EXE and > don't have to tell people it was made with GCC or those other libraries. That's different -- you don't distribute the GCC with your EXE. Same with MTASC -- you can distribute your proprietary SWFs, no problem, but if you would distribute MTASC as part of a bundle the rest of the bundle would have to have a compatible license. > I believe this is valid as long as the libraries are LGPL or BSD/MIT. > And from what I've read so far MPL is also okay. GPL libraries have to > be avoided. I believe with BSD and MIT you're good, but as I said, I'm unsure about the LGPL. I'm pretty sure that if the LGPLed code is in an extra SWF you're on the safe side. As for compiling it into the SWF, I have no idea. I've tried to read it, but your guess is as good as mine (it's not that long, <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html>). It boils down to the term "linked", I think. According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL>, it doesn't look good: "The LGPL places copyleft restrictions on the program itself but does not apply these restrictions to other software that merely links with the program. There are, however, certain other restrictions on this software. Essentially, it must be possible for the software to be linked with a newer version of the LGPL-covered program. The most commonly used method for doing so is to use "a suitable shared library mechanism for linking". Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided." You most likely know more about the MPL than I do. > Is that about right? And is it reasonable to consider an SWF equivalent > to an EXE? I /think/ it's pretty much the same thing, but I'm not sure. If somebody who knows what s/he is talking about could make an overview over the common licenses, that would be great. Mark -- http://snafoo.org/ key: 1BD689C0 (3801 6F51 4810 C674 1491 ADE7 D8F6 0203 1BD6 89C0) _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
