LGPL 2.1 + GPL 3 = problems?

Jesse Hannah jesse.hannah at gmail.com
Sun Jul 15 09:16:23 UTC 2007

On 15 Jul 2007, at 01:59, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Article 5c of GPLv3 says that "You must license the entire work,
> as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession
> of a copy."
> The problem is that you can't license the LGPLv21 parts under
> GPLv3.
> LGPLv21 has an automatic compatibility provision with GPLv2,
> so in the past this was never a problem.

But I could license the LGPL v2.1 parts under the LGPL v3:

     This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
     modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
     License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
     version 2.1 of the License, ***or (at your option) any later  

The way I'm reading that, I'm free to redistribute the library under  
the LGPL v3 if I want to, meaning (presumably) that I can use it with  
a GPLv3 program. Does that sound right?


Jesse B Hannah
	<jesse.hannah at gmail.com>
	<jesse.hannah at asu.edu>

Homepage: <http://www.lifeisleet.com>
Weblog: <http://blog.lifeisleet.com>
IRC Handle: <jbhannah at irc.freenode.net>

GPG Key: 0xA6DC3EF3
	Available from the keyservers or at

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070715/84f58875/attachment.sig>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list