Picking a license

[Ed Keith]

--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Patrick Maupin <pmaupin at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Patrick Maupin <pmaupin at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Picking a license
> To: python-list at python.org
> Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:35 PM
> On May 13, 10:07 pm, Lawrence
> D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> 
> > How exactly does the LGPL lead to a requirement to
> “relink”?
> 
> I think this might be a misconception, but I'm not 100%
> sure.  Since
> Ed gives his customers full source code, there may not be
> the
> requirement to directly provide the ability to relink,
> because "The
> “Corresponding Application Code” for a Combined Work
> means the object
> code and/or source code for the Application." and section
> 4d0 requires
> you to "permit the user to recombine or relink" where
> "recombine"
> isn't defined directly (perhaps in the underlying GPL?)

But if my client give someone else a copy of the binary I gave them, they are now in violation. I do not want to put my client in this position. 

When using the GPL or LGPL you can do anything you want as long as you do not let anyone else use your work, but if you let someone else have a copy of you work you are putting them in a position where that can easily/inadvertently violate the law. I do not want to put clients in legal jeopardy, so I do not use GPL, or LGPLed code.

I do not claim that using the GLP is immoral, nor deny others right to use it. I just feel the risks out way the benefits for me.

    -EdK

Ed Keith
e_d_k at yahoo.com

Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com