On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 11:34 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: [cut] > > The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries > > would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license, > > Camel's license might turn out to be incompatible with this. > > > > Which is something to avoid, I think. > > It doesn't work that way... (L)GPLv3 apps/libs can use (L)GPLv2 libs > without a problem, it's the other way around that doesn't work. LGPLv2-only is OK, but not GPLv2-only. Any binary resulting from a mixture containing GPLv2-only code must also be GPLv2-only. So a GPLv3 program cannot link with a GPLv2-only library. (unless, for other reasons, the link does not create a derived work.) -- Zan Lynx <zlynx acm org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part