On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > >> Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+. >> Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ? > > There is nothing in the GPL that requires you to put binaries under GPL. > In fact, you can't even do this in many cases. You just need to follow the > conditions in section 3 for the binary. > That assumes that the binaries are not considered "derived work", on which there is no general consensus. There are opinions in both ways. > If you ever like to convert LGPLv2 code to GPL, you of course cannot convert it > to GPLv2+ but only to GPLv2. > Now this contradicts spot's conclusion. Where is the catch? Orcan _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
