Am Donnerstag, den 06.07.2006, 19:13 +0200 schrieb Murray Cumming: > Only a very small part of libsigc++ can be linked dynamically. I don't > think we will ever allow that part to be linked statically in > proprietary applications.
Which part is that? Why does libsigc++ need a non-header part at all? > > > Also do you want LGPL 2.1+ or LGPL 2.1 to be the base of the license > > (base+exception being the license). > > At the moment, we say "either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your > option) any later version.", and I have no plans to change this. That > would be a separate and more difficult discussion. I asked because maybe the exception would not combine nicely with say LGPL 3.0. > > > Another proposal would be tri-licensing MPL/GPL/LGPL as does Mozilla. > > This is the combination I use for my own free C++ library code. I > > basically hope that it's good enough. > > I see no problem with LGPL+exception. Just a proposal! > > > Copyright and author's right (I will never again dare to mix those two) > > are complicated matters and of vast importance for software developers. > > Still, nobody has cared enough yet to write that exception text. > I think I would if I could. Other than that people probably don't fear being sued. But we all know what Murphy's law states. I think I will read the LGPL 2.1 a few times and then _maybe_ write a proposal for the exception. But I won't do any guarantees as I'm no lawyer at all. Kind regards, Aristid PS: Please take no offence, my sole intent is using libsigc++. _______________________________________________ libsigc-list mailing list libsigc-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list