On 4/3/07, Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Ok, can you then make the changes in the README and maybe in the headers of some source files? Vivien _______________________________________________ gnome-db-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list
