You are probably right regarding the parts who link GPLed code; doing that would imply that the derived work has to be GPLed as well, if it would be distributed further.
Considering the case where we link with LGPLed code, that should have no bearing on the license of the derived work, though (but perhaps you didn't consider that case here because this would be obvious, from the LGPL core idea).
/ Johan Sundström (ska bli kalif i stället för kalifen)
Previous text:
2002-10-09 11:26: Subject: Split
What about the following scenario:
I write some code that gets into some module in the Pike cvs, assigning copyright of that code to IDA, any license of their choice, etc. But the code links with GPL:ed code.
The reasonable way to look at this situation is to say that this is exaclty what the LGPL->GPL upgrade clause in the LGPL is for. So it's fine to link all of this together, as long as the result treated as a GPL:ed work.
From a practical point of view, that means that if a Pike-installation 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 ()