Re: gtkmm capabilities

[Roel Vanhout <roel riks nl>]

Russell Shaw wrote:
> Roel Vanhout wrote:
> > 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link 
> > a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work 
> > containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under 
> > terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of 
> > the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for 
> > debugging such modifications.
> >
> > This would be unacceptable for most commercial application that are 
> > released nowadays.
> It would only be unacceptable to pre-free-source licences.

Hmm I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'pre-free-source licences'.

> With a distribution of objects, no reverse engineering is needed,
> because only the LGPL libraries need to accessible to the user,
> who can get the source for them anyway.

It's irrelevant whether or not it's needed, the LGPL requires it so any 
programs that use gtkmm (or any other LGPL library for that matter) will 
have to allow it in their license.

> If any commercial app is going to be done with LGPL static libs, the
> licence should be modified for that. There's no law against modifying
> your licence to allow users to upgrade and relink the LGPL objects.

No, of course there is no law against that, and neither should there be. 
What I'm saying is that you cannot use a standard, tested, commercial 
license for any product that uses LGPL products, which is not only 
costly (you'd have to have a lawyer tailor a license to your 
application) but also a business risk. Costs that will make the 3000$ 
(which was the original point) pale in comparison.

cheers,

roel