== Quote from Kagamin (s...@here.lot)'s article > spir Wrote: > > There is a point I don't understand: if I'm right, LGPL as well as all other > > "open source", not strictly free-software, licenses allow using licensed > > software even for "privative" (proprietary) work. But they wouldn't allow > > using > > software for work licensed under other open-source licenses like the Boost license? > > Where's the bug? > They can be used, but they can't become proprietary or Boost licensed.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this last statement. AFAIK, LGPL source code may be used for licensed software, as long as it is compiled so as to keep the binaries separate (DLL or shared object).
