> 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 would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license, 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 : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-699ce10b1f5d466cd4c3d61301c3651f0c2ca219 you can't release a project under (L)GPLv3 if you're using a lib under GPLv2-only. Regards, Sebastien Tandel _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
