At 12:44 16/03/2001 +0100, Martin Kutschker wrote:
>Simon P. Lucy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > At 09:45 16/03/2001 +0100, Martin Kutschker wrote:
> > >Hi!
> > >
> > >The subject says, what I want to do. In particular it's an ("open
>source")
> > >arbitrary precision lib. There are several of the libs available, some of
> > >them are GPLd others are LGPLd.
> >
> > In general it goes like this. The MPL and NPL are file based licences so
> > they can interface with any other licence on a file boundary. LGPL is
> > similar, and there is no harm in connecting MPL and LGPL code in that
> > way. The LGPL code wouldn't make it into the tree though.
>
>Fine. So another approach would be to licence the wrapper also as LGPL.
>
> > To summarise, you can interface your own code to GPL code and use that
>with
> > Mozilla so long as you also licence your code as MPL and make it clear
>that
> > you do so. You will not be able to contribute that code back to Mozilla
> > though if it depends on GPL'd only code.
>
>Hmm. Also fine?
>
>I don't see the difference in the end result:
>
>With the LGPLd lib my code (MPLd or MPL/GPLd) could live in Mozilla, which
>wouldn't be of much interest/use if the lib doesn't come with Mozilla.
>With GPLd the situation is the same, but my code (GPLd) would have to live
>outside of Mozilla.
Exactly right.
Simon
>Masi
===================================================
If I'd known I would spend so much time sorting and rearranging boxes
I'd have paid more attention at kindergarten
S.P. Lucy
