Re: [sigc] Linking dynamically with SigC++ (now rather: License)

[Aristid Breitkreuz <aribrei arcor de>]

Am Donnerstag, den 06.07.2006, 19:13 +0200 schrieb Murray Cumming:
> Only a very small part of libsigc++ can be linked dynamically. I don't
> think we will ever allow that part to be linked statically in
> proprietary applications.

Which part is that? Why does libsigc++ need a non-header part at all?

> 
> > Also do you want LGPL 2.1+ or LGPL 2.1 to be the base of the license
> > (base+exception being the license).
> 
> At the moment, we say "either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your
> option) any later version.", and I have no plans to change this. That
> would be a separate and more difficult discussion.

I asked because maybe the exception would not combine nicely with say
LGPL 3.0.

> 
> > Another proposal would be tri-licensing MPL/GPL/LGPL as does Mozilla.
> > This is the combination I use for my own free C++ library code. I
> > basically hope that it's good enough.
> 
> I see no problem with LGPL+exception.

Just a proposal!

> 
> > Copyright and author's right (I will never again dare to mix those two)
> > are complicated matters and of vast importance for software developers.
> 
> Still, nobody has cared enough yet to write that exception text.
> 

I think I would if I could. Other than that people probably don't fear
being sued. But we all know what Murphy's law states.

I think I will read the LGPL 2.1 a few times and then _maybe_ write a
proposal for the exception. But I won't do any guarantees as I'm no
lawyer at all.

Kind regards,

Aristid

PS: Please take no offence, my sole intent is using libsigc++.