[osflash] LGPL Licensing in actionscript
Luke Hubbard (firstname.lastname@example.org)
king.selassie at gmail.com
Tue Apr 4 14:47:17 EDT 2006
Perhaps we should ask them to do one for actionscript.
Will be interesting to see what they say.
Putting aside the technical and legal stuff LGPL means the following to me.
You can use this code, but if you modify it, its got to be available as open
source. I assume this is why the majority of people pick the license, at
least that's why it was chosen for red5. I prefer BSD style since it doesn't
throw up these questions.
On 4/5/06, Dan Shryock <dan.shryock at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thats what I was afraid of :(. It would be so much simpler if I could
> just write an app, and compile it as a single swf and not deal with
> technical issues due to licensing constraints. Oh well... thanks again to
> you and Ralf for your inputs.
> On 4/4/06, Nicolas Cannasse <ncannasse at motion-twin.com> wrote:
> > > To me, this seems to imply that the situation which I mentioned above
> > > for C applications is correct. So my question is this: is compiling a
> > > swf which contains LGPL code the same thing as a statically linked
> > > library in terms of this license? If so, it seems to me that LGPL
> > code
> > > must be used with more care in actionscript than in other languages
> > > (which lend themselves to easier use of dynamically linking).
> > >
> > > Dan
> > The linking exception of the LGPL is not so much easy to port to other
> > architectures than C. However I think that a loadMovie would clearly be
> > considered to be dynamic linking.
> > Nicolas
> > _______________________________________________
> > osflash mailing list
> > osflash at osflash.org
> > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> osflash mailing list
> osflash at osflash.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osflash