LGPL 2.1 + GPL 3 = problems?
jesse.hannah at gmail.com
Sun Jul 15 08:09:18 UTC 2007
I'm going to go over both licenses again myself, but I'd like to hear
others' opinions about this; I'm not as well-versed in the LGPL as I
am the GPL, and I'm not as well-versed in either of them as I should
be, but I digress.
Would using (linking, including/redistributing unmodified) a library
that's licensed under the LGPL version 2.1 with a program that's
licensed under the GPL version 3 cause any weird problems? My initial
guess is that just linking the libraries, or redistributing the
source code unmodified---either entirely separate from, or something
like in its own folder in the same package with the GPL'd code---
would be fine, but any copy-and-paste inclusion, modification and
attribution might raise some eyebrows and/or compatibility issues
(like I said, I'll be reading the fine print one more time to see if
I can spot anything).
Sorry if this question's been asked before, and I know that the (L)
GPL 3 is still being looked over by the OSI. This is probably a
question that would be asked at some time or another, probably
repeatedly, since there almost certainly will be programs that will
be (L)GPL 3-licensed, that will want to link to, redistribute, or use
code from libraries that will still be LGPL 2.1-licensed. It's best
this gets brought up early in the life of the GPL 3 so that if there
are any big compatibility issues, people will know early on.
Anyone's thoughts, analysis, feedback, telling me to GTFO (well,
okay...maybe not that last bit) are all appreciated. I'm new here, so
be nice. :)
Jesse B Hannah
<jesse.hannah at gmail.com>
<jesse.hannah at asu.edu>
IRC Handle: <jbhannah at irc.freenode.net>
GPG Key: 0xA6DC3EF3
Available from the keyservers or at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the License-discuss