> 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 would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,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 :

you can't release a project under (L)GPLv3 if you're using a lib under 

Sebastien Tandel

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to