On 12/12/05, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The point is > > that if > > glibmm (not his code) contains templates released under an unmodified > > LGPL, > > he would as he says be required to release any source code which > > instantiates > > any of the templates or links (other than dynamically) with code which > > contains such instantiations. This would apply to anything using > > libsigc++ > > (which means that although GTK+ can be used in closed source code, gtkmm > > cannot), > [snip] > > This is highly debatable - otherwise nobody would be asking. The intention > is clear. If someone worries enough about this then they should ask the > FSF, who wrote the LGPL. In extreme circumstances, if it was really > necessary, we could relicense libsigc++ under the MIT/BSD license, or > license it as GPL+exception, as GNU's libstdc++ is licensed: > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html > > Again, the only opinion I'd pay much attention to on this is the FSFs > because they have lawyers.
So will the FSF sue even though the authors of the library promise not to? > Murray Cumming > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.murrayc.com > www.openismus.com > > -- R. Douglas Barbieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
