LGPLv3 and GPLv2 incompatibility (was: multiple topics)

[Wilson, Andrew]

whoops, fixing a typo.

[off-topic for purposes of LGPLv3 OSD compliance]

> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>John Cowan wrote:
>
>> I agree with *that*, I just see no necessity to do so.  Your
arguments
>> are not addressing the powers granted by section 6 (or 4).
>
> I think what Andrew Wilson is saying is that while LGPLv3 section 4 
> allows linking the LGPLv3 library with code under GPLv2 (or indeed any

> license), GPLv2 /doesn't/ allow that same link.  Obviously, both would

> have to allow the combination for it to be legal.

Well put.  With no way to retroactively
change GPLv2's copyleft, FSF would have had to special-case
allowing a GPLv2/LPGLv3 combined work by allowing such a
combined work to be governed by GPLv2's copyleft under LGPLv3.
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                 rather than LGPLv3's
copyleft.     

My hope would be that, as license stewards for all GPL versions, 
FSF might yet be able to issue clarifications or
guidelines to address this important 
license combination.

Andy Wilson
Intel open source technology center