Re: Linuxsampler license
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov <email@example.com> wrote:
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be "GPL compatible" not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
I believe LGPL 2a (The modified work must itself be a software library),
and 2d (...you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
event an application does not supply such function or table, the
facility still operates...) are 'further restrictions' with regards to
GPL 6, and thus the LGPL and GPL are incompatible.
To be GPL compatible, a license must impose the same, or a subset of,
the restrictions the GPL imposes. It can also grant additional
permissions, even conditionally, but no further restrictions*.
BSD/MIT/zlib/etc. do not impose any futher restrictions than the GPL,
and so are GPL compatible.
* For example, a license consisting of the GPL (minus the preamble) plus
a paragraph 13 'if your name is Jeff, You may copy and distribute the
Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or
executable form, provided you pet a cat' would be GPL-compatible: all
the restrictions imposed on the user are the same; if he was called
Jeff, he would have the option of exercising additional rights, but no
rights taken away.