Apparently, though unproven, at 19:43 on Monday 15 November 2010, Mike Edenfield did opine thusly:
> On 11/15/2010 11:05 AM, Florian Philipp wrote: > > It's LGPL licensed. The GUI is a bit ugly but it has a lot of > > functionality and can handle cases in which the Windows defragger > > doesn't work. That mostly happens when the disk is nearly full. > > Since we're *way* off topic as it is: > > mydefrag isn't LGPL, just freeware, but I did notice this on the > jkdefrag site: > > "The executables are released under the GNU General Public License, and > the sources are released under the GNU Lesser General Public License." > > Is that even possible? It's possible, as someone did it ... :-) It's not valid though, and it's nonsensical. If they give you binaries per GPL, then they must make the sources available. They already make the sources available per LGPL, so now they are dual-licensed. If you choose to accept them under GPL, then you may only compile and redistribute them under GPL. If you choose to accept them under LGPL, compile them and redistribute them, then other non-GPL software can link to them per the terms of the LGPL. So which is it? GPL? LGPL? Both? Sounds like someone on that project has a gigantic misunderstanding on how the licenses work. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
