Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Tom Walsh <tom@o...> wrote:
>
> Joel Winarske wrote:
> 
> >>It is also LGPL code.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Bottom of page @ http://efsl.be/
> >
> >"License
> >This project is released under the Lesser General Public license, 
which, in
> >short, means that you may use the library and it's sourcecode for 
any
> >purpose that you want, that you may link with it and use it 
commercially,
> >but that ANY change to the code must be released under the same 
license.
> >That means, if you add hardware suport, you share it, so that the 
community
> >may benefit from access to all kinds of hardware."
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> Also read Section 6a of the LGPL to see if the following 
constraints are 
> acceptable, the LGPL text is found at: 
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html#SEC3
> 
> As quoted (emphasis mine):
> 
> "*6a)* Accompany the work with the complete corresponding 
> machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever 
changes 
> were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 
and 2 
> above); and, */_if the work is an executable linked with the 
Library, 
> with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", 
as 
> object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the 
Library 
> and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the 
modified 
> Library_/*. (It is understood that the user who changes the 
contents of 
> definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to 
> recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)"
> 
<snip>
> 
> TomW

Note that the LGPL is mainly for libraries, and quite explicitly 
states that if you maintain the LGPL'd code in it's own library, and 
use a shared library methodology to use it, you don't have to make 
available any of your own code.  The only code you have to make 
available is any portions of the LGPL'd code that you modified.

It's not all that difficult to modularize the code into a seperate 
library, especially since you're obtaining the code as a module in 
the first place.

In any case, note that 6a says "machine readable source code", which 
is quite ambiguous.  Technically an object file is "machine readable 
source code", as a C-source file is more of a "human readable source 
code" file.  Assembler output of a C-source code file with all 
comments stripped definitely falls under "machine readable source 
code" and doesn't give anything that the user couldn't already get 
by using a disassembler.

What this does mean, however, is that if you don't use an external 
library then you can't charge for your application anymore, because 
you must provide it for free to anyone who asks.

In any case, if the only good pieces of OSS software that do what 
you need are under LGPL there's no reason not to use it and to 
instead use a lesser piece of code that isn't under LGPL.