Re: [boost] Re: Re: Extensible polymorphic pointer for speed & memory

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-07 02:17:53

[2002-08-07] Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:

>
>"Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>news:20020807012157-r01010800-16bd7b8e-0860-0108_at_12.100.89.43...
>> [2002-08-07] Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
>>
>> >- I feel more secure with LGPL.  I don't know about you people?
>>
>> I'll quote myself, again...
>>
>> [2002-07-16] Rene Rivera wrote:
>> >LGPL is NOT compatible with any open BSD style license, like the Boost
>one.
>> >And an LGPL license is a hindrance to just about any C++ header based
>> >distribution. For an example take a look at the license on libg++ ...
>It's
>> >not LGPL! It's a modified GPL instead.
>
>Who will defend you in court?

Don't need anyone... I just don't use LGPL _source code_ in my commercial
programs. Companies I've worked for in the past and friends who have also
encountered the issue have consulted the respective law professionals.

Try reading the LGPL carefully, the requirement for binary relinking by the
user is the key contention point. How do you relink templates?

But if you don't believe me do a google search on the subject.

But I should ask... Why do you feel more secure with the LGPL?

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]