Really I am not sure at all LGPL go to this level to force you to reuse the same LGPL license if you only took idea but no code. This is meanly trap from the microsoft world with their open code stuff.
At the very last the only reference to look at is the LGPL text itself http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl.html I have not time now to check it... Hilaire 2008/8/1 Lukas Renggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > Well, looking at GST is probably not a good idea when working on such >> > a project, because it is LGPL licensed. I am just saying that I like >> > the design and implementation of this particular library (which could >> > already mean derivate work). >> >> Why being LGPL licensed may be an issue? > > Taking an idea from (L)GPL code forces you to use (L)GPL for your code > as well. See the recent discussions (mess) in the Squeak and Swazoo > mailing-lists. The exact meaning of "taking an idea" depends on the > interpretation. Some people argue that only reading (L)GPL code makes > your code (L)GPL. > > Lukas > > > -- > Lukas Renggli > http://www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- http://blog.ofset.org/hilaire _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
