> 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. Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ libsigc-list mailing list libsigc-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list
