[ODE] Suggest a type of Licence for GIMPACT

Justin Couch justin at vlc.com.au
Thu Oct 26 17:50:56 MST 2006

Jon Watte (ODE) wrote:
> Daniel K. O. wrote:
>> The only 
>> definitive argument against [L]GPL is: "I don't want it".
> No, there are at least two other arguments:
> 1) Shipping a re-linkable kit may be a lot of work, if you can't 
> dynamically link against the LGPL part.
> 2) Shipping a re-linkable kit may be IMPOSSIBLE if the other things you 
> link have distribution restrictions (such as licensing terms) -- you 
> couldn't do it for any of the current game consoles, for example.

Incorrect. You are not required to ship the source with the binary. You 
are required to provide access to the source in a suitable means. A 
website download is perfectly acceptable for this.

 From a the perspective of someone who runs a company based on open 
source software and ships stuff with both licenses - the _only_ 
difference between the two is religious when it comes to a commercial 
company's perspective. Daniel's perspective is correct.


More information about the ODE mailing list