Re: [Opensync-users] Libsyncml

[Hubert F. <hfi...@te...>]

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 12:24 +1000, Dave Hall wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 18:21 -0700, Dan Mosedale wrote:
> >  I did notice that libsyncml is GPL, while opensync itself is 
> > LGPL.  Won't this cause a problem for folks that want to ship opensync 
> > itself under the LGPL but not the GPL?
> 
> There is no problem linking GPL and LGPL code.
> 
> As long as the documentation is clear, then there will no issue.  As
> both licenses require distribution of the source, it should be clear to
> anyone working on the code what the deal is.

But it can be a problem. For example to be shipped in GNOME, it would
have to be a LGPL library, because that is a requirement.
Or if you want to write a conduit for OpenSync that link against
something that is not GPL compatible.

These problems should be understood.

Hub
-- 
Crazy French - http://www.figuiere.net/hub/