Sorry. I should have checked the FAQ first. I may see if there is a procedure for making exceptions. I suspect the real policy is "no, unless you make a fuss."
Thanks! -- Aaron Watters On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Noah Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: > Some companies are against having to release source under any conditions. > I don't work with him, but I've heard internal rumblings in such companies > because if you modify/patch the LGPL'd software and release it, you'll have > to share the modifications. > > Luckily, things have improved a lot since then at most companies :-) > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Ivan Pechorin <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 2012/4/23 Aaron Watters <[email protected]> >> >> I just started a new job where I had hoped to use zeromq >>> but I discovered that zeromq is listed on the internal "forbidden" >>> list because of issues with LGPL. There may be political ways >>> around this as far as I know, but just to ask... >>> >> >> By the way, what are the issues exactly? >> >> I used to think that LGPL (not GPL!) with static linking exception is >> safe for use in closed-source applications, from legal point of view. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> >> > > > -- > *Noah Gibbs* > Software Engineer | > [email protected] | (510) 260-5409 (cell) > www.ooyala.com | blog <http://www.ooyala.com/blog> | > @ooyala<http://www.twitter.com/ooyala> > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
