Now, guys, that you found each other you can take your discussion of 
scary hacker stories off list ;-)

Gennady.

David Ross wrote:
>>Reverse-engineering is only one aspect. LGPL forces
>>us to ALLOW 
>>MODIFICATIONS to our program by users.
>>
>>Imagine selling a version of software limited to 2
>>CPUs to a bank.  And 
>>then the bank modifies your software to run on 32
>>CPU servers.
>>
> 
> 
> This is why I will never ever use LGPL in commercial
> non-open software that I care about.
> 
> 
>>Or selling a standard edition of your product at a
>>huge discount and 
>>then having customers modify it to work just like
>>the professional or 
>>enterprise versions.
>>
> 
> 
> Yep, there are tons of great assembly coders who can
> easily do this(*despite how much assembly code there
> is to write).
> 
> 
>>Soo....statically link your commercial app to
>>Fox-Toolkit and you're 
>>required to allow reverse engineering of your app
>>and allow users to 
>>modify your app (per Section 6 of LGPL).
> 
> 
> Yes, you might as well have it opensource :)
> 
> This was the intention of the LGPL. It is so
> commercial application are still considered "free to
> public" for making any modifications. 
> 
> --David Ross
> 
> 
> 		
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. 
> http://messenger.yahoo.com
>