As I noted to Warren, what started all this was the statement in the
MySQL web site that because it used LGPL that it was not useful for
closed source applications.
Which runs counter to what LGPL was about. It seems that the only way
this is the case is if MySQL++ is used in static link fashion.
From: Chris Frey [mailto:cdfrey@stripped]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: License Question
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:29:42PM -0500, Hardy, Allan wrote:
> What I meant by no significant advantages is that as you said,
> providing the object code and pieces needed to do this is onerous, and
> while it is technically/legally a choice its very impractical, right?
> I mean I believe that's what I hear you and chris saying?
I'm not saying there's no significant advantage. If you're writing
closed source apps, the LGPL is a significant advantage, since it lets
you do it at all.
I'm not sure what your goal or real question is anymore. :-)
mysql++ and mysql could be used, via LGPL, in closed source apps. That
has since changed for mysql, but not for mysql++.
If closed source is your goal, then as Warren mentioned, buy a
commercial license from MySQL AB that lets you link with mysql++, and
everybody's happy. mysql++'s LGPL won't stop you in this case, as I
MySQL++ Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus