17 Feb
2016
17 Feb
'16
8:19 p.m.
On 17 Feb 2016, at 18:34, David Matthews <David.Matthews at prolingua.co.uk> wrote: ... Of more concern is that LZO is licensed under GPL rather than LGPL. Poly/ML is licensed under LGPL and that means that it cannot include or even link to LZO without coming under GPL. That doesn't preclude experimenting with it but for distribution I'd prefer a library that didn't have these problems.
It would cause me significant problems if the Poly/ML licence changed to GPL. I can't understand why the LZO developers chose GPL rather than LGPL unless they hope that decision would force people to buy their commercial offering (which I believe is a doomed business plan).
Regards,
Rob.