[lwip-users] Re: RE:Re: [lwip] Should LwIP go (L)GPL ?

[Paul Sheer]

> 
> I agree on stating LGPL is theoratically a better
> license. I disagree on the fact that it will benefit
> lwIP development in the real world.

well its probably going to loose some of my help.

which implies that i have nothing to offer ;-P

> 
> Consider the case where a party (person/company)
> changes the lwipopts.h or arch/cc.h files or even less
> subtle files for some purpose.
> 
> Should this party be enforced to open-source his
> changes and the hassle of adhering all the license
> requisites such as managing the public availability
> of it's source changes?

well, its up to us whether we want to sue, and up
to the company to decide whether they have made a
sufficient moral infringement to be at risk.

myself, i don't bother to notify authors of minor
compilation changes. i also consider header files
fair game.

i am busy talking to "the" Larry Rosen about my new
license...

-paul

Paul Sheer Consulting IT Services . . Tel . . . +27 (0)21 6869634
Email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . address@hidden
Linux development, cryptography, recruitment,  support,  training
http://www.icon.co.za/~psheer . . . . . . http://rute.2038bug.com
L I N U X . . . . . . . . . . . .  The Choice of a GNU Generation

[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]