Lpc2000

seangra wrote:

>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.
>
>  
>
I think you mis-spoke when you used the term "shared library" and you 
meant to say "dynamically linked library"?

A.k.a. runtime linking of program code + library code at the time it is 
executed.

>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.
>  
>
How do you do that, segregate the code into a subdirectory and call it a 
"module" ?  heh

You are not getting a "module", it is a library.  I think that "module" 
is too generic a term to use when speaking in a the specific tense.

>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.
>  
>
You are twisting words.  There can be, and often is, a vast difference 
between the Technical meaning of a term and that of the Legal meaning!  
"machine readable" means the execution (interpretation) of code by the 
computing device, not that you can view it on a computer.  "machine 
readable" is a legal term as it is used here within a copyright. 

Please refer to:  
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+machine+readable&btnG=Google+Search


>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.
>  
>
Not true.  You can sell programs which are based upon OSS software, or 
are programs derived from OSS software.   It is called "value added" and 
is entirely possible to do under GPL + LGPL.  By doing so, you still 
must abide the original license terms.   The use of the terms "GPL" and 
"LGPL" mean freedom not free.

>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.
>
>
>
>  
>

Regards,

TomW


-- 
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------------------------------------------