From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28306 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2009 10:30:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 28295 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2009 10:30:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.network-theory.co.uk (HELO mail.network-theory.co.uk) (66.199.228.187) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:30:07 +0000 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: From: Brian Gough To: Rhys Ulerich Cc: gsl-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Licensing question In-Reply-To: <4a00655d0906131139y1bd3a168x36fc1d113d73d870@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a00655d0906131139y1bd3a168x36fc1d113d73d870@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Message-Mac: f87d6c4e2a1653c176f84c433afc9c97 Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q2/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 At Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:39:33 -0500, Rhys Ulerich wrote: > I've got a licensing question. An individual has some nice routines > that I believe fill gaps in the GSL integration functionality. > These routines are LGPL. Is it possible for the individual to make > a GPL/LGPL one-off release that could be pulled into GSL without > "screwing up" the LGPL licensing he currently uses? As I understand it, this wouldn't be needed - it is not necessary to make a separate release. Any code under the LGPL can always be used under the GPL by anyone, there are clauses in the LGPL which explicitly allow this. I'm assuming we are talking about version 3 of the GPL here, or version 2 with the "any later version" permission. > Specifically, could he continue to update and release his own > routine modifications under only the LGPL? Yes, I wouldn't see that being a problem. -- Brian Gough