Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes: | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: | [...]
If what you say here is true, then what is the point in having both a GPL and a LGPL license?
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/01/1052216&mode=nocomment
| "RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That | is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright | law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work, | then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our | licenses say, they are operative only for works that are | derivative of our code.
| A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if | it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser | GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some | of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the | courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative, | if the courts think it is not." I read this snippet to go against your conclusion, not to support it. So: Linking a non-GPL-like project to a GPL'ed lib is not ok. Linking a non-GLP-like project to a LGPL'ed lib is ok. -- Lgb