On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:33:12AM -0500, Ben Burton wrote: > Hi.. thank you both for your replies. Unfortunately the two responses gave > opposite answers, so I'm no less confused, but at least I'm feeling a little > less embarrassed about my confusion now :).
The GPL requires derived works of GPLed software to be distributed under the GPL. But it only becomes a "derived work" when it gets linked. So, if you're just distributing source code, you can distribute it under whatever license you like; but if you're distributing executables, you need to distribute them under the GPL. So, for your library, you're effectively distributing it under the GPL for normal use, but you've allowed other people to rip out any parts that may be independent of the underlying GPLed library, and reuse them with non-free/non-GPL software under the terms of the LGPL if they want. Basically, you can only safely link GPLed and GPL compatible software together, and the result ends up being just GPLed. OTOH, you can always do this. GPL-compatible licenses include anything which basically allows relicensing under the terms of the GPL. So "public domain", "You can use and modifiy and distribute modified or unmodified copies, without restriction", LGPL and GPL licenses are all fine, pretty much. AIUI, IANAL, IANrms, etc. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
