On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Michael P. Gerlek <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mpg@flaxen.com">mpg@flaxen.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p>Martin-</p><p>I don’t understand why you put some of those applications under LGPL -- the LGPL typically only makes sense for *libraries* that are designed to be linked against…? (Or are you concerned about 3<sup>rd</sup> party applications that could invoke your applications as a separate process?)</p>
</div></div></blockquote><div>Michael ,<br><br>I don’t understand it either ... probably due to my aforementioned own incompetence on those things. (-: Howard suggested LGPL for LASzip so- blue-eyed as I am - I figured it must be a decent license to use.<br>
<br>Which license would you suggest? Or maybe someone else has an informed opinion about which license they would like me to put the "open source" part of LAStools under?<br><br>Please reply only to me and not the entire list.<br>
<br>Martin<br><br></div></div>