[ODE] Suggest a type of Licence for GIMPACT
Jon Watte (ODE)
hplus-ode at mindcontrol.org
Thu Oct 26 18:11:30 MST 2006
Did you even read what I wrote?
Justin Couch wrote:
> 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