license mess

["D Bera" <dbera web gmail com>]

Hey (any lawyers, special Hi :),

  I was thinking about including some source code and a binary library
with beagle when I faced this difficult question one more time.

Is it ok to include the binary ikvm*.dll ?
http://weblog.ikvm.net/story.aspx/license
Is it ok to include the source code of Eulersharp ?
http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/LICENSE
They both seem to me to be ok, but I would like to have a second opinion.

And now I want to resolve this confusion for once and all. I
understand we would like to distribute our code with MIT/X11 license.
About the million outside code included in beagle, they come with
various licenses. Here is the list from COPYING:
------------------------------------------
Subprojects include:
	* DotLucene - Apache License v2.0
	* Hal# - MIT License
	* HtmlAgilityPack - BSD License
	* Parts of libegg (eggaccelerators.c and eggtrayicon.c) - GNU LGPL v2
	* SemWeb - Creative Commons Attribution License
	* System.Windows.Forms.RTF - MIT License
	* jslib - Mozilla Public License v1.1
	* xdgmime - Academic Free License v2.0 or GNU LGPL v2
	* LZMA SDK - GNU LGPL v2
--------------------------------------------

So please help me out if you can,
- is it ok to include LGPL source but not ok to include GPL source ?
- linking with LGPL should be fine but linking with GPL should not be
fine. However, GNU classpath (needed for IKVM) has the GPL linking
exception clause, so should it be fine to link with it ?
- is there any quick list of checks to ascertain if a license is ok
for inclusion with beagle ? I usually read the license, see if it asks
me do more than the 1 simple thing specified in the MIT/X license.

A million thanks in advance, literally.
- dBera

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
Debajyoti Bera @ http://dtecht.blogspot.com
beagle / KDE fan
Mandriva / Inspiron-1100 user