On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:26, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Douglas Ridgway wrote:
- LGPL may well be legal gibberish. Be sure to consult non-FSF lawyers
as well as talking to the FSF. This is problematic because a gibberish license will discourage use. I know that I would be cautious linking source with a value of 100M against something LGPL, if I was worried about the risk that a judge might decide that by so doing I'd created a derived work, and thus had gnuified my entire source.
This is so much FUD that even Microsoft would blush. If this would even be a _possibility_, no comercial company would release products on Linux, since they most likely link against glibc. I assure you the Oracle DB is worth more than 100M...
The lawyer currently contacted works for the FSF. Of course he thinks the LGPL is suitable. Contacting an outside (non-affiliated) lawyer is a wise thing to do.
Since the LGPL has not been taken to court, no legal precedence for it has been set. Has something happened recently to change this?
Sean -------------- scf@farley.org