[boost] Re: License Conversion Update: Graph library incompatw/GPL

From: Lars Gullik Bjønnes (larsbj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-06 10:53:49

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:

| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| [...]
>> If what you say here is true, then what is the point in having both a
>> GPL and a LGPL license?
>
| http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/01/1052216&mode=nocomment
>
| "RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That 
|  is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright 
|  law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work, 
|  then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our 
|  licenses say, they are operative only for works that are 
|  derivative of our code. 
>
|  A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if 
|  it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser 
|  GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some 
|  of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the 
|  courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative, 
|  if the courts think it is not."

I read this snippet to go against your conclusion, not to support it.

So:

Linking a non-GPL-like project to a GPL'ed lib is not ok.
Linking a non-GLP-like project to a LGPL'ed lib is ok.

-- 
	Lgb