Re: libbtctl: two questions regarding use of LGPL and GPL in source files

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>]

Øystein Gisnås wrote:

> I've gone through license considerations of RFP-marked package
> libbtctl lately, and have questions about two concerns:
> 
> * 7 source files are have LGPL license in their headers, but link
> against bluez-libs, which is licensed under the GPL. One such file
>
ishttp://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/libbtctl/src/btctlimpl.c?rev=1.20&view=markup.
> The overall license of libbtctl is GPL. Shouldn't the license in each
> of the 7 source files be changed to GPL since they link against a
> GPL'ed library?

No.  LGPL is approximately equivalent to GPL+LGPL.  The source files are
LGPL (in case someone takes them out and uses them for some other project).
The combination is GPL.

Basically, whenever you add a bit of GPL to an LGPL thing, you get GPL --
but the LGPLed bits remain LGPL in case someone wants to separate them out
and use them for something else.

> 
> * Some source files are LGPL and some are GPL. The end-result library
> is GPL. My conclusion is that this is DFSG compatible. Am I right?
> 
> Cheers,
> Øystein Gisnås

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@fastmail.fm>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...