Re: License question

["R. Douglas Barbieri" <dooglio gmail com>]

On 12/12/05, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> > 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.

So will the FSF sue even though the authors of the library promise not to?

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


--
R. Douglas Barbieri
doug dooglio net