Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > FSF will never strike LGPL #3 . It would go against their stated goal > of having all software free for them to do so. Further, to distribute a program that combined GPL and LGPL-#3 code would be a violation of the GPL (where LGPL-#3 means a license identical to the LGPL except for the omission of Clause 3). IMHO as many licenses as possible should include such a clause, but no-one should exercise that clause when distributing modified code. This gives us GPL compatibility without GPL restrictions. Better yet, allow conversion to the LGPL, which transitively allows conversion to the GPL. -- __ \/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ \ / /\__/ Paul Crowley Upgrade your legacy NT machines to Linux /~\
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Seth David Schoen
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Bruce Perens
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Pat St. Jean
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Seth David Schoen
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Seth David Schoen
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Pat St. Jean
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Bruce Perens
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Seth David Schoen
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Bruce Perens
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Bruce Perens
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Paul Crowley
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Bruce Perens
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Wilfredo Sanchez
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Bruce Perens
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Wilfredo Sanchez
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Seth David Schoen
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Pat St. Jean
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Seth David Schoen
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Bruce Perens
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Pat St. Jean
- Re: GPL and LGPL question Tim Pierce