On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:50:52PM -0500, John Belmonte scribbled: > Chad Walstrom wrote: > >>My guess is that it means some parts of the library are under GPL, some > >>under LGPL, and some in the public domain. If that's the case, the > >>library as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL, correct? > > > >Not necessarily. If work is done on the Public Domain portion of code, > >and the author wants to continue releasing changes to that portion under > >the same license, he or she may do so without "poisoning" it with GPL. > >The same is true for the LGPL portions of the library. GPL doesn't > >conflict with LGPL or Public Domain in any way. > > That's fine, but if I'm developing an application that may not use GPL'd > libraries and only those under LGPL, BSD, etc., the proposed license > field of libnettle is useless, and perhaps misleading. It is not. It forces you to do some more research, which is what you should do anyway with libraries like nettle where individual files may carry different licenses. That way you are warned about the situation. If I say "GPL" you will have the false impression you cannot use it at all, etc. marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature