Re: FWD:Re: ORBit2 and linc - licensing?

[Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc cu-portland edu>]

On 25 May 2001 04:52:40 -0700, gnome-2-0-list-admin gnome org wrote:
> ------_=_NextPart_000_01C0E511.34279D30
> From: Sam Couter <sam topic com au>
> Alex Graveley <alex ximian com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Linc and ORBit2 are LGPL, OpenSSL is BSD with an Advertising Clause. I
> > know little about licensing, but isn't the OpenSSL license
> > non-compatible with the (L)GPL?
> 
> What you mean is that the GPL is incompatible with most other licences.
> That's a big downfall of using the GPL. Yay RMS.

This incompatibility goes both ways.  I'm sure that the people who have
released GPL code have at the very least read the license, and I'm
pretty sure they feel like they know how it works.  Please don't uses
these lists to slam it.  I'd not have had any problem with your post if
you'd omitted the above two sentences.  They provide nothing relavent to
the discussion at hand, and are only flame bait, as far as I can tell.
Sorry for being so long winded.

> However, the LGPL is compatible with many other licences, including the
> BSD
> licence with advertising clause. It's not a viral licence like the GPL.
> The
> ORBit libraries can be released under the LGPL, linked with OpenSSL,
> which
> is under a seperate licence.

My notes for ORBit say that the license is GPL/LGPL, so it looks like
some portions of it are already LGPL, which may permit linking to
software which isn't free.
    Greg

-- 
Troll, troll, troll your post
Gently down the feed
Merrily, merrily troll along
A life is what you need...