includes one module A, linking to GPL:ed code, and another module B,
linking to GPL-incompatible code, one shouldn't use both A and B in
the same program. Technically, *use* is still allowed, of course, but
if I distribute code that uses both A and B, I can expect the author
of the GPL:ed code to be pissed at me.
Do you agree with this interpretation?
So one should make sure to document which modules depend on GPL:ed
code (i.e. modules that require the use of the LGPL->GPL upgrade
clause), and modules that depend on GPL-incompatible code (defined as
code the license of which does *not* allow upgrading to the GPL).
/ Niels Möller ()
Previous text:
>2002-10-08 17:55:
>Subject: Split
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>No, LGPL is not OK if the code is GPL.
>
>We cannot have GPL or other non-LGPL/MPL compatible code in the pike
>distribution (or CVS), so if they did not agree to the relicensing,
>the module can not be included in Pike.
>
> / Per Hedbor ()
>
