Wine license change
sean at farley.org
Thu Feb 7 15:23:42 CST 2002
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?
scf at farley.org
More information about the wine-devel