Re: why LGPL 2.0?

[Noah Levitt <nlevitt columbia edu>]

I think there's an easy out. The source files say:

 * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
 * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
 * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

So you can take the option, and distribute under the terms
of a later version.

Noah

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 15:21:51 -0700, Joseph J. Strout wrote:
> I'm currently trying to convince my company to base its next major 
> project on GTK++.  But they're nervous about the licensing issues 
> (this will be a commercial product).
> 
> Part of this is caused by the fact that GTK++ comes with LGPL version 
> 2, from June 1991.  This has some very confusing wording in section 
> 5, where the first paragraph says that a program that links with the 
> library is not a derivative work, and the second paragraph says that 
> a program that links with the library IS a derivative work.
> 
> I notice that the current version of LGPL at gnu.org is Version 2.1, 
> from February 1999.  This has slightly clearer wording in section 5 
> (though it still contains this apparent contradiction).  Any chance 
> the copyright holders of the GTK++ code would consider updating to 
> that version of the license?
> 
> Also, if our attorney needs a written statement of approval from 
> someone clarifying that our intended use of GTK++ does not constitute 
> a derivative work, whom would we talk to about that?
> 
> Thanks,
> - Joe