So that is interesting. If you don't distribute a program that makes use of LPGL libs (e.g. a downloadable EXE), but you provide a remote view (in this case a web) on a server that runs that program, then the license does not apply...

Oh well I should just let the lawyers look into all these licenses, it's not my domain.

2009/2/25 Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net>
* Peter Verswyvelen <bugfact@gmail.com> [2009-02-25 23:15:24 +0100]:

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Peter Hercek <phercek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * An LGPL library will force commercial users to release their source code
> > only to the users of their program (which already bought it) and only for
> > the purpose of recompiling with a newer version of the LGPL library.
>
> Does this also mean one can't make closed source but *free* software
> that uses LGPL libs? Since all users can then potentially request the
> source code? E.g. suppose Google would have used LGPL libraries to
> implement parts of their search engine...

Google doesn't distribute code or binaries for google.com, though
(although there is the appliance stuff..)
--
mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmlx4YACgkQpNuXDQIV94rO6gCeLp5pkzXQkXIfFmwwCSWHQX3o
QscAn1ipd1Sft/K5QKiYtT9y15ssdnrk
=sZXJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe