> But this is your interpretation. Clearly, the authors of gtkmm and > libsigc++ didn't intend this interpretation. Especially for libsigc++ > it simply does not make any sense to license it under LGPL if the > template parts weren't covered by the same pattern of use - i.e. as > long as you are just using the library, there are no restrictions on > your license as long as people can get to the source of the library > itself (and do the relinking stuff). >
I'm only following the thread of discussion here, I don't claim to know whether this is an LGPL issue that directly affects gtkmm folks, and I am sure the people behind this project are knowledgeable enough to choose the right license for the job. I am more interested in the development of the C++ programming language, the discusion of the export keyword for example. Obviously that is of interest to all of us, in the sense that we are all C++ users, and in the sense that, as you said, _some people_ interpret the lgpl/comercial software combination as being problematic. Hope that clears things up mate. Cheers, Gaz _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
