[ODE] Suggest a type of Licence for GIMPACT

[Jon Watte (ODE)]

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.
> 
> Justin
> 
>