RE: Libpropc++

[Foster Gareth <gareth foster siemens com>]

> But this is your interpretation. Clearly, the authors of gtkmm and
> libsigc++ didn't intend this interpretation. Especially for libsigc++
> it simply does not make any sense to license it under LGPL if the
> template parts weren't covered by the same pattern of use - i.e. as
> long as you are just using the library, there are no restrictions on
> your license as long as people can get to the source of the library
> itself (and do the relinking stuff).
> 

I'm only following the thread of discussion here, I don't claim to know
whether this is an LGPL issue that directly affects gtkmm folks, and I am
sure the people behind this project are knowledgeable enough to choose the
right license for the job.

I am more interested in the development of the C++ programming language, the
discusion of the export keyword for example. Obviously that is of interest
to all of us, in the sense that we are all C++ users, and in the sense that,
as you said, _some people_ interpret the lgpl/comercial software combination
as being problematic.

Hope that clears things up mate.

Cheers,

Gaz