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=1.20&view=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