On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 05:21:59PM -0500, John Belmonte scribbled: > Marek Habersack wrote: > >Quoting from the nettle manual: > > > > Nettle is distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL) (see the > > file COPYING for details). However, most of the individual files are dual > > licensed under less restrictive licenses like the GNU Lesser General > > Public > > License (LGPL), or are in the public domain. This means that if you don't > > use the parts of nettle that are GPL-only, you have the option to use the > > Nettle library just as if it were licensed under the LGPL. To find the > > current status of particular files, you have to read the copyright notices > > at the top of the files. > > The upstream author can make this statement because people compiling the > library can go into the makefile and disable various (say GPL) source > files and prevent them from being included in the library, thus > producing a library file that is (for example) under the LGPL. > > However in your package, assuming it is compiling GPL'd modules and > including them in the library, is producing an object file governed by > the terms of the GPL. Therefore your license field should read only "GPL". Users still have a choice of using only the non-GPL parts of the library by linking with the static version of the lib and pulling only the non-GPL objects from there. marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature