Permissive licenses, community, and copyleft
Permissive licenses, community, and copyleft
Posted Oct 19, 2015 0:06 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Permissive licenses, community, and copyleft by krake
Parent article: Permissive licenses, community, and copyleft
Please, educate yourself before posting.
Posted Oct 20, 2015 5:37 UTC (Tue)
by krake (guest, #55996)
[Link] (1 responses)
Interesting proposal from someone who obviously has not seen the license text of the LGPL.
Spoiler: it does not even contain the string "static".
> That's why QT still has a costly proprietary license, for example.
Some recipients do not like the clauses of the LGPL, e.g. their legal department doesn't want to look into copyleft licenses or they want to incorporate the Qt code into their own directly and not link it.
And there are those who, like yourself, fell for the rumor that statically linking requires the proprietary license.
However, people falling for a rumor, no matter how many, does make the license actually say that.
So, in practise, people think there is a restriction which, in practise and theory, does not exist.
Posted Oct 29, 2015 17:36 UTC (Thu)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
And, once again, the "commercial" aspect need not have anything to do with proprietary licensing. There are companies making money selling support for Free Software. Maybe even HP manages to do so.
Permissive licenses, community, and copyleft
Permissive licenses, community, and copyleft