On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 13:58 +0200, Vivien Malerba wrote: > On 4/3/07, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > According to the libgda README: > > > > " > > Database providers are licensed under the > > GPL license, which means that any work derived from it must also adhere to > > the > > terms of the GPL license. Libraries (libgda, libgda-sql, > > libgda-report) are, on the other hand, licensed under the LGPL license, > > which > > allows for commercial applications to be developed based on libgda. > > " > > > > But how can libgda be LGPL if it must link to GPL provider libraries? I > > think we need to change this. > > > > I think the intention is clear so I don't think we need to go through a big > > process to clarify this. > > Yes, just put everything under the LGPL. I don't know how and who > historically set the licenses but I think it was a long time ago and > the idea was probably LGPL rather than just GPL.
OK. > However for the exercice of the mind, is it not possible to link LGPL > with some GPL (considering that the applications using libgda will > _not_ make any call to a DBMS API directly in which case having libgda > as LGPL and the providers as GPL would still be Ok)? No. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gnome-db-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list
