Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 14, 9:10 am, Ed Keith <e_... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 5/13/10, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Picking a license
> > To: python-l... 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.

Good point.  I guess I haven't distributed something linked in a while
(really just Python), so I tend to forget that aspect of it.

Regards,
Pat