On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 06:41:37PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > If there are binary packages which build solely from LGPL sources (they > do not use any GPL-only sources), those packages can be licensed as > LGPL. Sorry for replying to my own mail, but I was writing confusing things. :-) The packages aren't licensed as a whole, they are, like tarballs, aggregations of files which may have different licenses. I was really talking about files when I wrote packages. There is no problem to have a binary package which includes both GPL and LGPL files. Of course it should all be documented in debian/copyright. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature