At 00:51 2003-1-9 +0100, you wrote:
Are you sure, Tilo... one reason I've been cautious of the Lesser GPL is that only section 6 gives you the right to distribute a product using a version of the library under non-GPL terms. For a Palm OS app to qualify under section 6, it would either need to have the LGPL'd library be a shared library (choice 6b), or it would have to ship a static library of the app minus the lib for the user to relink themselves (choice 6a). I'm not even sure you could do 6a, since the tools you use are not part of the operating system.Hi!> For LGPL, using Razar! as an example, do I need to disclose > my source code if I look at Razor!'s (L) code (i.e. more than > just linking with it, I read the source and learn from it)? No, there is no situation whatsoever in which you will have to disclose your application's source code. Many people actually use Razor! just for learning, or maybe copy&paste of small bits of code, which is perfectly permissible.
Do you have a different interp? I think for something like Razor, the Mozilla Public License may actually be closer to your intentions, since it only requires that developers redistribute changes they make to the library code. This is what libprc (part of par) uses, and this enabled us to use it for the Palm OS linker in CW Palm OS V9.
--
Ben Combee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CodeWarrior for Palm OS technical lead
Palm OS programming help @ www.palmoswerks.com
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
