On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Tommi Mäkitalo wrote: > > If you are saying that LGPL:ed tntdb would be distributable as > > long as nobody uses it under the LGPL license, but only under the > > GPL license, then I think I do understand.
This would only be the case if it was forming a derivative work of a GPLed work, in which case making tntdb LGPLed instead of GPLed would be a null op. > As far as I understand it should be ok to relicense tntdb under the > LGPL, which allowes users to distribute closed source applications > linked with tntdb. It is not allowed to link with the mysql-driver, > but because this never happens directly - only by dlopening > tntdb-mysql, it does not affect the LGPL-license. Right? Pretty much. Commercial users may not be able to use or distribute tntdb-mysql if they form a derivative work of a GPLed work, but they should be able to use the other parts of tntdb in their program so long as they comply with the LGPL. [You'll notice that I'm not telling you whether or not dlopen()ing actually forms a derivative work. That's because it's not clear whether it does or does not. There's no case law in this area at all,[1] so the conservative method is to assume that it does if you want to avoid liability, although the actual legal reality is likely different.] Don Armstrong 1: Or at least that I'm aware of. -- I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was: "We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel." -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
