I'll ask debian-legal. I have a pretty good idea that LGPL is ok for source, but binary would be GPL due to MySQL client, but I'll ask anyway.
This is a question about possible license combinations. More specifically, can a more freely licensed software than GPL use a GPL library. >>It states that the later versions of MySQL are GPL and that one could >>not link to it with an LGPL license. >> >> > >This is not true. If it were, no one using a GPL'd library could use >glibc, which is LGPL. And since almost everything on a Linux box links >to glibc in one way or another, the statement cannot be true. > >Keep in mind, MySQL++ is just another library. It is not a completed >program on its own. > > This is backwards. If we have, A - GPL B - LGPL C - LGPL D - BSD, non-free, LGPL or whatever The above states that A cannot link with B, which is not what I meant. I meant that, A links with B (ex. a system library like glibc). ok C links with A and B D links with C and B but C links with A. So can we have a C that is LGPL if it depends on a GPL library? What about D? It only uses LGPL API. Or is it the problem of D to look after *all* of the dependencies of B and C? Also, does the license of binary C changes automatically to GPL as soon as it links with A? Can the license of source code C remain whatever even if it links against A? - Adam PS. Please CC me, I'm not on the list. -- The email address used to send this email is temporary. It is bound to disappear at any time. Please thank the morons that buy crap from spammers for this.
