On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 10:10:41PM +0100, Chris Halls wrote: > On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 11:33, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 21. September 2004 12:28 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > > Why not? If all of OOo is LGPL, then the license allows you to > > > distribute under the terms of the GPL, so linking with another GPL > > > library is ok.
> > Hmm... > Does this mean we would be changing the licensing of the packages from > LGPL/SISL to GPL only? This may upset some users who are linking > non-free modules to OOo at the moment. I'm thinking of the Finnish > spellchecking and hyphenation module that Jarno Elonen packaged. FWIW, my take on this is as follows: - There does not appear to be any requirement to distribute LGPL code under the GPL just because it's linked to by other GPL code; c.f. glibc. - This suggests that the LGPL->GPL "license conversion" is actually taking place at runtime, rather than at the point of distribution. - If there exists a core codebase distributed under the LGPL, one or more modules using this codebase that are distributed under the GPL, and one or more modules using this codebase that are distributed under a GPL-incompatible license, we only run into problems if the incompatibly licensed modules depend on one another or are otherwise intended to be used together by default. - So as long as you don't upload a bizarre metapackage that pulls in Finnish and Hebrew spellcheck modules together :-), we should be ok. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
