On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:40:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:

> Well, i personally was under the impression that when you link a LGPLed and a
> GPLed work together, the result needs to be under the more restricive licence,
> namely the GPL. This is indeed what you can read in point 3 of the LGPL, which
> is the one you seem to mention : 

The resultant binary must be distributed under terms that are compatible
with all of the licenses.  In this case (GPL and LGPL), the terms of the
GPL are sufficient.  If I include BSD-licensed source in my GPL'd program,
I am not required to change the license of the BSD source in order to make
a GPL executable (if it isn't my code, I probably can't change the license
anyway).  The resultant work as a whole is still distributed under the
terms of the GPL.  Someone could extract the BSD code and build a different
"work" that was not under the GPL.

The FSF has a rather large list of various licenses and whether or not you
can legally build a single work, distributed under the GPL, that includes
code under these licenses: <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html>.
Generally, this means that these other licenses do not contain restrictions
that the GPL forbids.

Dave