Øystein Gisnås wrote: > I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package > libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns: > > * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link > against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file > ishttp://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/libbtctl/src/btctlimpl.c?rev=1.20&view=markup. > The overall license of libbtctl is GPL. Shouldn't the license in each > of the 7 source files be changed to GPL since they link against a > GPL'ed library?
No. LGPL is approximately equivalent to GPL+LGPL. The source files are LGPL (in case someone takes them out and uses them for some other project). The combination is GPL. Basically, whenever you add a bit of GPL to an LGPL thing, you get GPL -- but the LGPLed bits remain LGPL in case someone wants to separate them out and use them for something else. > > * Some source files are LGPL and some are GPL. The end-result library > is GPL. My conclusion is that this is DFSG compatible. Am I right? > > Cheers, > Øystein Gisnås -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?...
