Tom Lane wrote:
>Kenneth Downs <ken(at)secdat(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>If it turns out that nobody can release a closed source app, I will
>>definitely reconsider and look again at LGPL, but I am not convinced you
>>cannot do so.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>If you seek to provide a closed source app that is built upon Andromeda,
>>you are required to provide the source code to Andromeda itself.
>>However, your app is not a derivative work in the strict sense because
>>your code is not mixed in with mine in any sense.
>>
>>
>
>This may well be what a sane person would think after perusing the
>license text, but you need to be aware that the FSF takes a much more
>expansive reading of that text. AFAIK those details haven't been tested
>yet in any court of law --- but until a reading is settled by court
>precedents, people tend to look to the FSF's interpretation. And the
>FSF is on record as saying that if code A depends on code B then B's
>GPL license infects A, even for pretty weak values of "depends".
>You should carefully read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html,
>which contains statements such as
>
> If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function
> calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a
> single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the
> main program and the plug-ins.
>
>I don't have anything against the GPL's goals, but those goals are very
>clearly that the entire software universe should be GPL code. If that's
>not what you have in mind, then you should think twice about licensing a
>software component (as opposed to a standalone product that isn't meant
>to have other code depending on it) under GPL.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
Tom, thanks much. That points me pretty firmly towards LGPL. I will
reflect on this and likely make a change in the coming weeks.