Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Mar 2011 15:50 UTC, submitted by Geoff Floding
Permalink for comment 465102
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-14
There were two questions posed. I'm unsure which one you were answering. Care to clarify?
No, a distributor of LGPL binaries is not required to distribute source as well?
Or
No, that isn't the reason why these select industries do not want to use LGPL licensed software?
Edited 2011-03-07 20:59 UTC