On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 11:34 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > 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 would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,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.

LGPLv2-only is OK, but not GPLv2-only.

Any binary resulting from a mixture containing GPLv2-only code must also
be GPLv2-only.  So a GPLv3 program cannot link with a GPLv2-only
library.  (unless, for other reasons, the link does not create a derived


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to