LGPL 2.1 + GPL 3 = problems?
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
> 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>
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