Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

[Srinivasa Ragavan <sragavan novell com>]

The context I started the activity was on Evolution (mixed licenses of
V2-only and V2-or-later) where OpenChange wasn't able to write plugins
using SAMBA (V3) and OpenChange libmapi (V3) due to license mismatch. 

I saw that EDS also has these mixed licensing and Philip also pointed it
out and I thought I will take this up as well while dealing with the
legal team. EDS/Camel is should LGPLv2-or-later AFAIK when Harish
committed the changes around 2.6 times.

-Srini.

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:
> > On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the
> > > "or later" clause.
> > 
> > For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange
> > and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and
> > LGPL v3 or with the "or later" clause.
> > 
> > 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 would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,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.
> 
>