
> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Maarten Boekhold wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I read this message on the debian development list. Thought it might be 
> > of interest to scrappy on the PostODBC thingie...
> 
> 	Damn, to say I hate copyrights isn't saying enough :)  Okay, I
> guess the first thing to note is that PostODBC actually falls under the
> LGPL vs the GPL, which appears to have slightly more lax restrictions on
> how it gets included with other packages...
> 
> 	Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
> the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory?  Or remove
> it all together?  Or leave it where it is?
> 
>  > > Maarten
> > 
> > Subject: Re: Copyright question: GPL patches for non-GPL packages
> > 
> > > if you want to mix gpl'ed software with other software, that other
> > > software's licence may not conflict with the gpl.
> > > 
> > > for example, you can mix software with bsd style licencens (or x window
> > > licence) with GPL'ed software, becuase these two licences do not
> > > conflict. the mix will be under GPL'ed.

As the preamble to the LGPL says, LGPL and GPL are completely different --- they
share the same intention (to let people use software), but are completely
different licences. Do not interpret anything from GPL as applying to LGPL or
vice versa. Read the licence which applies and work out what it says.


Andrew

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin                             University College London
EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk    (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk
URL:   http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin
Tel:   (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890                    (Home) +44(0)1372 275775

Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:31:19 GMT
Andrew Martin <martin@biochemistry.ucl.ac.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: Copyright question: GPL patches for non-GPL
	packages (fwd)