On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
> > "or later" clause.
> For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange
> and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and
> LGPL v3 or with the "or later" clause.
> The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries
> would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,
> Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this.
> Which is something to avoid, I think.

It doesn't work that way... (L)GPLv3 apps/libs can use (L)GPLv2 libs
without a problem, it's the other way around that doesn't work.

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to