"J.W. Bizzaro" a écrit : > > Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > > > > LGPL is OK for me. Though I propose the same license modification as in Linux: > > allow linking with closed-source binaries. > ... > > Anyone thinks this is bad? > > That's fine with me. I like everything about the GPL, except for the > restriction on linking to/from closed-source binaries. That's why I prefer > the LGPL. > > > Overflow can use foreign nodes and > > types compiled in a shared library. This is forbidden by the (L)GPL, unless it > > is explicitly allowed, as for the Linux kernel (which allow closed-source > > drivers). > > I thought the Linux kernel was GPL, not LGPL. > > The LGPL already provides an exception for linking to/from closed-source > binaries. Can you post the passage in the LGPL or GPL where you have to > 'explicitly allow' closed-source linking? There are two very different issues here. The LGPL allows a closed-cource program to link with the Overflow libraries. However, neither the GPL, nor the LGPL allows to link the program/library with a closed-source library. This means that even is Overflow is LGPL (for the libraries) and GPL (for the program), you couldn't link it with a closed-source library. This is the same reason why KDE was at one point "illegal", since it was linking against a closed-source library, Qt. Because of that issue with the LGPL, Linus explicitly "modified" the GPL to allow closed-source drivers. Jean-Marc -- Jean-Marc Valin Universite de Sherbrooke - Genie Electrique valj01 at gel.usherb.ca