Mail Archives: djgpp/2008/12/31/04:04:23
DJ Delorie writes:
> > One last question. does the executeable that uses the library I made
> > (modified) come under GPL3, so that I would need to include 2
> > licenses, the GPL3 and the LGPL2 from copying.lib?
>
> The executable comes under license terms which must be compatible with
> both LGPL2 (for the modified library part) and GPL3 (for the
> remainder). It's up to you to ensure that this is the case.
Well, actually if LGPL2 is the only license involved for code he
doesn't own, it's not necessary for him to do anything. Clause 3 of
LGPL2 explicitly permits conversion to the more restrictive terms of
GPL, v2 or later. So he can just put the whole shebang under GPL3, to
the extent that the only code he uses that isn't his is LGPL2 (and he
must do so, if any of the code that isn't his is GPL3).
The real problem he would face is if any of the code involved is
GPL2 (only).[1] Then his only option is GPL2.
Footnotes:
[1] That seems to be your intent, but copying.dj says "GPL" (no
version). According to the GPL itself, that means "GPL, any version
ever published by the FSF".
- Raw text -