Re: License question

["Murray Cumming" <murrayc murrayc com>]

> The point is
> that if
> glibmm (not his code) contains templates released under an unmodified
> LGPL,
> he would as he says be required to release any source code which
> instantiates
> any of the templates or links (other than dynamically) with code which
> contains such instantiations.  This would apply to anything using
> libsigc++
> (which means that although GTK+ can be used in closed source code, gtkmm
> cannot),
[snip]

This is highly debatable - otherwise nobody would be asking. The intention
is clear. If someone worries enough about this then they should ask the
FSF, who wrote the LGPL. In extreme circumstances, if it was really
necessary, we could relicense libsigc++ under the MIT/BSD license, or
license it as GPL+exception, as GNU's libstdc++ is licensed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html

Again, the only opinion I'd pay much attention to on this is the FSFs
because they have lawyers.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com