Jump to navigation Jump to search
:You are perfectly right, corrected (although I will not update the readme in the archive for this, since noncommercial is mentioned in the text anyway). I am, however, still thinking about the license, generally. For the time being, Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike seemed like a safe route to go, but I don't have a problem releasing it under another license if someone could point out a better suited one. [[User:Drmr|Drmr]] 15:50, 8 July 2008 (CEST)
As I understand it, under the LGPL I would only be able to use these cursors if I either provide the source code for my program or load the cursors from files included with the program. So I would not be able to embed the cursor into my binary unless I released the source? [[User:Chris|Chris]] 16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
: Aside from complete source disclosure, section 4 of LGPLv3 offers you two other possibilities. One you mentioned already: Including the "library" and "dynamically linking" it, i.e., load the PNGs from included files. The other, perhaps less practical, would be to provide the possibility to compile your program with the library, e.g. with pre-compiled files of the parts you want to keep closed-source. All in all, you are quite correct, tho, and encouraging open-source has been kind of the point to make the icons LGPL. Is it a problem for you to release the source code? --[[User:Drmr|Drmr]] 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::I just prefer not to, mainly because my code is inefficient and messy! Thanks for the clarification though. [[User:Chris|Chris]] 17:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I hear that argument so very often, but that is actually even more reason to release the source code. Both you and the source can only gain from it. --[[User:Drmr|Drmr]] 01:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Navigation menu