On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 09:30 -0800, Andrey Sisoyev wrote:
Svein Ove Aas wrote:
In this case, LGPL is a problem. It requires you to offer a way to
re-link such binaries against new versions/implementations of the
library, which in practice requires it to be either open source or
2010/1/12 Duncan Coutts duncan.cou...@googlemail.com:
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 09:30 -0800, Andrey Sisoyev wrote:
Svein Ove Aas wrote:
In this case, LGPL is a problem. It requires you to offer a way to
re-link such binaries against new versions/implementations of the
library, which in
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:24:22AM +0100, minh thu wrote:
2010/1/12 Duncan Coutts duncan.cou...@googlemail.com:
Any user can then perform the last step themselves and if they're really
lucky they might get that to work with a slightly modified version of
the LGPL'ed package. In practise of
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:24 +0100, minh thu wrote:
In short, if I understand you correctly, you would just have to
provide your code in unlinked form regardless of the existence of some
tool to create another ABI-compatible version of the LGPL library.
Right.
The procedure I mentioned is
On Jan 12, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Duncan Coutts wrote:
But that is the intent of the LGPL, to protect the rights of the users
*receiving* the code, not to guarantee that modifications are
available
to the entire world.
I wonder whether the following statements are valid:
When I write a
On Jan 12, 2010, at 8:46 PM, Sebastian Fischer wrote:
Am I allowed to distribute the sources under BSD3 and the binary
under LGPL?
Would that make sense? Maybe not, because anyone who distributes a
binary of my program or derivative work must license it under LGPL
anyway.
Well it may
Sebastian Fischer s...@informatik.uni-kiel.de writes:
I wonder whether the following statements are valid:
You want my layman's opinion?
When I write a program that uses an LGPL library, I am allowed to
distribute the *sources* of my program under a permissive (non-
copyleft) license like
sebf:
Hello Café,
when writing a Haskell library that uses two other Haskell libraries --
one licensed under BSD3 and one under LGPL -- what are allowed
possibilities for licensing the written package? PublicDomain? BSD3?
LGPL?
Libraries don't link in other things as such -- the
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Don Stewart d...@galois.com wrote:
sebf:
Hello Café,
when writing a Haskell library that uses two other Haskell libraries --
one licensed under BSD3 and one under LGPL -- what are allowed
possibilities for licensing the written package? PublicDomain? BSD3?
Svein Ove Aas svein@aas.no writes:
when writing a Haskell library that uses two other Haskell libraries --
one licensed under BSD3 and one under LGPL -- what are allowed
possibilities for licensing the written package?
Any resulting binaries might contain a mixture of such libraries, and
Svein Ove Aas wrote:
In this case, LGPL is a problem. It requires you to offer a way to
re-link such binaries against new versions/implementations of the
library, which in practice requires it to be either open source or
dynamically linked.
Don't understand that. Can't we just put a
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Sebastian Fischer
s...@informatik.uni-kiel.de wrote:
when writing a Haskell library that uses two other Haskell libraries -- one
licensed under BSD3 and one under LGPL -- what are allowed possibilities for
licensing the written package? PublicDomain? BSD3? LGPL?
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 12:02:46PM -0600, Tom Tobin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Sebastian Fischer
s...@informatik.uni-kiel.de wrote:
when writing a Haskell library that uses two other Haskell libraries -- one
licensed under BSD3 and one under LGPL -- what are allowed
On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Don Stewart wrote:
Libraries don't link in other things as such -- the .cabal file is
the only
thing that ties them together -- so you can use whatever license you
like.
On Jan 11, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
I think in
your case you can license the
What reasons do people have to use a BSD license over a Public
Domain license, for example with the license text from: http://www.lemur.com/pd-disclaimers.html
? Is the only difference that, with a BSD license, the copyright
notice must be maintained?
I've heard rumors that you can't
Sebastian Fischer wrote:
What reasons do people have to use a BSD license over a Public Domain
license, for example with the license text from:
http://www.lemur.com/pd-disclaimers.html ? Is the only difference
that, with a BSD license, the copyright notice must be maintained?
One important
16 matches
Mail list logo
