> > CMS is not a self-contained isolated library and except of very simple > projects, a web application build on top of it will require changes in the > CMS code. >
True, but an app might be a mix of directly editing the CMS code plus writing independent code that merely calls the CSM's API. In that case, the LGPL would require release of the edited CMS code, but the independent code could still be kept private. Not so under GPL. > With GPLv3 it's simpler as more licenses are compatible (see the full list > [2]) > But if the CMS is LGPL and you want to include some library that is not compatible with LGPL but is compatible with GPL (e.g., a GPL library), all you have to do is release the combined work as GPL, which puts you in the same position as if the CMS had been GPL to begin with. So, GPL doesn't give you any more flexibility regarding what you can include, but it does give you less flexibility regarding how you can release combined works. Anthony
