On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 13:33 -0300, standel wrote:
> > 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 would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,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.
> > 
> 
> I fear it's not that simple! see the GPL compatibility matrix :
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-699ce10b1f5d466cd4c3d61301c3651f0c2ca219
> 
> you can't release a project under (L)GPLv3 if you're using a lib under 
> GPLv2-only.
> 

Sounds like the FSF have screwed the pooch on this new license then,
don't it? ;)

Jeff


_______________________________________________
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

Reply via email to