Re: Suggestion for handling of boot-time driver options
Michael Neuffer (neuffer@goofy.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de)
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 07:11:14 +0100 (MET)
On 17 Dec 1997, david parsons wrote:
> In article <linux.kernel.199712150519.GAA03765@sundiver.zdv.uni-mainz.de>,
> Dominik Kubla <dominik.kubla@uni-mainz.de> wrote:
>
> >Just in case you don't know: some companies don't port their commercial
> >software to linux because the license of the C/C++ library would force
> >them to provide the customer with the source code. No joke!
>
> That's not strictly true. According to my reading of the LGPL, you
> can avoid infection by either providing a link kit or dynamically
> linking. It's not perfect (particularly considering the state of
> libc4 and libc5; perhaps libc6 will be better) but it's a long ways
> from having to distribute the sources.
The problem it that the people that read the legalese (the LPGL) are
lawyers who have no clue what dynamically or statically linking is
or even a link kit. Those people are scared and need help.
What would possibly help would be a big fat sign that
says in bold and blinking letters something like
"YOU DO NOT NEED TO DISCLOSE YOUR SOURCE IF YOU DO NOW WANT TO."
Mike