LGPL 2.1 + GPL 3 = problems?

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Mon Jul 16 04:41:03 UTC 2007

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Wrong! Not any version of the GPL, unless otherwise specified in an
> additional permission in the copyright notice of your library,

I noted in my earlier message why this is wrong.

> But if the FSF publishes a GPLv3.1 update but no update to LGPLv3.0 to
> authorize GPLv3.1

This is obviously unlikely.

> (2) Waiting for the FSF to publish a later version of the LGPL that allows
> using the library within a GPL v3.1 program. Note that "or any later version
> of the GPL" may be present absent from the updated LGPL v3.1, and if so, you
> won't be able to include it in the copyright notice of your program without
> asking for permission to the original author of the LGPL v3 library!

It doesn't necessarily have to be in the license proper.  It can also be 
present in the notice of the LGPL program you're using.

>  But it may happen with possible future versions of the
> GPLv3, or with programs licenced by their original authors under GPLv3.0
> with additional restrictions such as those excluding later versions of the
> GPL.

This is not an additional restriction.  This is just licensing under 
GPLv3.  The (or later) is an optional (but suggested) part of the 
license notice.

This is a good thing too, because this is not an allowed additional 
restriction in GPLv3.  It would be voided by "If the Program as you 
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is 
governed by this License along with a term that is a further 
restriction, you may remove that term."

> You CANNOT distribute your combined work under the GPL v2.1 or LGPLv2.1 if
> only one component is licenced under GPL v3.0 or LGPL v3, and this means
> that the new section about the required extension of Patent Licencing in GPL
> v3.0 will apply to your combined work.

This is not the only new section.

Matthew Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list