Lieven van der Heide wrote:
> Ok, according to the matrix on
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
>
> it's indeed not allowed, although I don't really understand why.
Mathias pointed out exactly why. It's not that linking GPLv2-only to
LGPLv3 violates the LGPLv3 license of the library. Linking a GPLv2-only
app to a LGPLv3 library actually violates the app's its own license.
The GPL in general doesn't allow linking to libraries with more
restrictive licenses[1], and the LGPLv3 is more restrictive than GPLv2-only.
-brian
[1] The exception being for supposed "platform" libraries; e.g., you can
link to Microsoft's C runtime even though it's closed source because
it's a standard interface that can be considered part of the OS. I
believe Sven quoted the exact bit from the GPL in another post.
>
> On 3/18/08, Lieven van der Heide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Does that really apply for the code you link to? Afaik, if a GPL
>> program uses an LGPL library, it doesn't relicense that library under
>> GPL too, it merely links to it, and leaves it up to the user to make
>> sure the library is available. If this would be the case, than it
>> wouldn't be possible for GPL code to use something like the Windows
>> API or DirectX either.
>>
>> I think the restriction from the link you posted only apply to GPL
>> libraries, but not LGPL.
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/08, Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Am Montag, den 17.03.2008, 00:31 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann:
>> >
>> > > I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that
>> > > programs
>> > > licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3
>> > > allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but
>> > > excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me!
>> > >
>> > > Is the FSF spreading FUD with their license matrix? Why doesn't the
>> > > matrix have footnotes explaining that absurd conflict?
>> >
>> >
>> > Ok, it is not FUD. It seems the problem is, that LGPLv3 imposes
>> > additional restrictions not found in the GPLv2. So it isn't the LGPLv3
>> > that forbids LGPLv3 libraries to be used by GPLv2-only programs. It is
>> > the GPLv2 which forbids to linking against libraries more restrictive
>> > than itself.
>> >
>> > See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
>> > for details.
>> >
>> > In theory LGPLv3 allows addition of exceptions, but they have to be
>> > approved by all copyright holders. Doubt this will happen. So only
>> > chance for upgrading to a new version of the LGPL is waiting for an FSF
>> > approved version of the LGPL, which drops those additional restrictions
>> > for GPLv2-only programs.
>> >
>> > Total insanity...
>> >
>> >
>> > Ciao,
>> > Mathias
>> > --
>> > Mathias Hasselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/
>> > Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/
>> >
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> > gtk-devel-list mailing list
>> > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
>> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
>
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
