Re: libbtctl: two questions regarding use of LGPL and GPL in source files
Øystein Gisnås wrote: I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns: * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file ishttp://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/libbtctl/src/btctlimpl.c?rev=1.20view=markup. The overall license of libbtctl is GPL. Shouldn't the license in each of the 7 source files be changed to GPL since they link against a GPL'ed library? No. LGPL is approximately equivalent to GPL+LGPL. The source files are LGPL (in case someone takes them out and uses them for some other project). The combination is GPL. Basically, whenever you add a bit of GPL to an LGPL thing, you get GPL -- but the LGPLed bits remain LGPL in case someone wants to separate them out and use them for something else. * Some source files are LGPL and some are GPL. The end-result library is GPL. My conclusion is that this is DFSG compatible. Am I right? Cheers, Øystein Gisnås -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?...
Re: libbtctl: two questions regarding use of LGPL and GPL in source files
Le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 à 05:01 +0200, Øystein Gisnås a écrit : I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns: * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file ishttp://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/libbtctl/src/btctlimpl.c?rev=1.20view=markup. The overall license of libbtctl is GPL. Shouldn't the license in each of the 7 source files be changed to GPL since they link against a GPL'ed library? You can do that, but there is no need to do it, as there isn't any problem with mixing GPL and LGPL code. * Some source files are LGPL and some are GPL. The end-result library is GPL. My conclusion is that this is DFSG compatible. Am I right? The end-result is a mix of GPL and LGPL, and practically speaking it has the effects of the GPL. This is of course perfectly free. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
libbtctl: two questions regarding use of LGPL and GPL in source files
I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns: * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file ishttp://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/libbtctl/src/btctlimpl.c?rev=1.20view=markup. The overall license of libbtctl is GPL. Shouldn't the license in each of the 7 source files be changed to GPL since they link against a GPL'ed library? * Some source files are LGPL and some are GPL. The end-result library is GPL. My conclusion is that this is DFSG compatible. Am I right? Cheers, Øystein Gisnås
