Julien BLACHE wrote: > abel deuring <adeur...@gmx.net> wrote: > >>I don't want to open a discussion about licenses, but IMHO Sane's >>exception to the GPL encourages cases like this one. I think it >>would be more reasonable to put sane-backends under the LGPL, which > > Good luck in getting every copyright holder (which includes every > patch contributor) to agree to the relicensing :)
That's exactly, why I wrote that I don't want to open a discussion ;) > >>makes the rules for linking proprietary and free code very clear, > > Err, no, not really. It quickly becomes quite tricky to use LGPL code > in an application in complete compliance with the license. Really? Admittedly, it is some time ago that I took a closer look to the LGPL, but I thought that the main reqirement is that a user must be able to recompile the free library and to link this new library version to the proprietary code. No big deal with shared libraries, for example. Abel
