abel deuring <adeur...@gmx.net> wrote: Hi,
>> Good luck in getting every copyright holder (which includes every >> patch contributor) to agree to the relicensing :) > > That's exactly, why I wrote that I don't want to open a discussion ;) Yeah, I mentioned that as a reference for people wondering why SANE isn't licensed under the LGPL :) >> Err, no, not really. It quickly becomes quite tricky to use LGPL code >> in an application in complete compliance with the license. > > Really? Admittedly, it is some time ago that I took a closer look to > the LGPL, but I thought that the main reqirement is that a user must > be able to recompile the free library and to link this new library > version to the proprietary code. No big deal with shared libraries, > for example. Indeed, but then there's the written offer clause for example which can become quite tricky to manage. JB. -- Julien BLACHE <http://www.jblache.org> <j...@jblache.org> GPG KeyID 0xF5D65169
