On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Don Stewart wrote:
Libraries don't link in other things as such -- the .cabal file is the only thing that ties them together -- so you can use whatever license you like.
On Jan 11, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Tom Tobin wrote:
I think in your case you can license the library you're writing any way you'd like, but distributing a statically linked binary might leave you with additional obligations under the LGPL.
Thank you all for your comments. It seems consensus that it is no problem to depend on LGPL libraries if no binary that links to LGPL'ed code is distributed. I understand that this consensus is no definite legal advice, though. What reasons do people have to use a BSD license over a Public Domain license, for example with the license text from: <http://www.lemur.com/pd-disclaimers.html
? Is the only difference that, with a BSD license, the copyright notice must be maintained?
Sebastian -- Underestimating the novelty of the future is a time-honored tradition. (D.G.)