Graham Klyne
At 17:26 20/10/04 +0200, Sven Panne wrote:
Henrik Nilsson wrote:
[...] (Unless everyone uses "cpphs", then, which ultimately would seem like a good idea.)
If you mean "everyone happy with a LGPL", then I would agree. But GHC and Hugs use a BSD-style license, so cpphs is not an option for them.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't agree with this assessment.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't think there's any problem distributing an LGPL-licensed program with a BSD-Style-licenced program. For one thing, the LGPL states: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Library with the Library (or with a work based on the Library) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. further: 5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. But who knows... cpphs isn't a library and a lot of the terms of the license are stated explicitly in terms of libraries. I always think of the LGPL that, "You can USE it with whatever kind of license you want, but if you alter it and redistribute it, you must do so under the terms of the LGPL or the GPL." peace, isaac