From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D52BBC3F for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:47:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9RHlALS017157 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:47:10 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA25864 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:47:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.davidb.org (adsl-64-172-240-129.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net [64.172.240.129]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9RHl817017152 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:47:09 +0200 Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 4.42 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMrst-00012y-V2; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:46:55 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:46:55 -0700 From: David Brown To: Sven Luther Cc: skaller , David Brown , Christoph Bauer , OCaml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Announce: Schoca-0.2.3 released Message-ID: <20041027174655.GA3869@old.davidb.org> References: <1098642597.3075.32.camel@pelican.wigram> <20041025025832.GA1582@old.davidb.org> <1098681488.3075.151.camel@pelican.wigram> <20041027144005.GA1803@pegasos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041027144005.GA1803@pegasos> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 417FDF1E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 417FDF1C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 caml-list:01 sven:01 luther:01 wrote:01 gpl:01 lgpl:01 binary:01 gpl:01 lgpl:01 license-list:01 namely:03 resultant:03 executable:03 resultant:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:40:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Well, i personally was under the impression that when you link a LGPLed and a > GPLed work together, the result needs to be under the more restricive licence, > namely the GPL. This is indeed what you can read in point 3 of the LGPL, which > is the one you seem to mention : The resultant binary must be distributed under terms that are compatible with all of the licenses. In this case (GPL and LGPL), the terms of the GPL are sufficient. If I include BSD-licensed source in my GPL'd program, I am not required to change the license of the BSD source in order to make a GPL executable (if it isn't my code, I probably can't change the license anyway). The resultant work as a whole is still distributed under the terms of the GPL. Someone could extract the BSD code and build a different "work" that was not under the GPL. The FSF has a rather large list of various licenses and whether or not you can legally build a single work, distributed under the GPL, that includes code under these licenses: . Generally, this means that these other licenses do not contain restrictions that the GPL forbids. Dave