Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing

[Judd Storrs]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:30 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> Look again at the GPL compatibility matrix.  Octave is the GPLv3
> application (one of the columns under the "I want to release a project
> under:" heading).  Now look at the lower part of the chart (the rows
> labeled "I want to use a library under:" heading).  Linking GPLv3 with
> LGPL (any version) is OK.  The only problem is with GPLv2 only.  So I
> don't see the problem for linking Octave and FLTK.

The table doesn't mention LGPLv2 at all, only "LGPLv2.1".

The biggest difference between LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 is the name change
on the license from "Library General Public License" to "Lesser
General Public License", but there are differences in the clauses.

So, it could be a difference without distinction. However, LGPLv2.1
section 6.b which discusses use as a shared library does not appear in
LGPLv2.0 Whether that's really a substantive difference or not I don't
know.

It seem to me, and IANAL, that anything permitted under LGPLv2.1 is
also permitted under LGPLv2.0, but not visa-versa. The table says
"LGPLv2.1 or later" and does not mention LGPLv2.0 anywhere, but that's
probably because LGPLv2 had loopholes that 6.b plugged and the FSF
prefers nobody use it.

--judd