On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:26, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Douglas Ridgway wrote: > > > * LGPL may well be legal gibberish. Be sure to consult non-FSF lawyers > > as well as talking to the FSF. This is problematic because a gibberish > > license will discourage use. I know that I would be cautious linking > > source with a value of 100M against something LGPL, if I was worried about > > the risk that a judge might decide that by so doing I'd created a derived > > work, and thus had gnuified my entire source. > > This is so much FUD that even Microsoft would blush. If this would even be > a _possibility_, no comercial company would release products on Linux, > since they most likely link against glibc. I assure you the Oracle DB is > worth more than 100M...
The lawyer currently contacted works for the FSF. Of course he thinks the LGPL is suitable. Contacting an outside (non-affiliated) lawyer is a wise thing to do. Since the LGPL has not been taken to court, no legal precedence for it has been set. Has something happened recently to change this? Sean -------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
