>>Ah, no. The most restrictive license always obtains.
Ok, now I will argue :) 0r respectively disagree, but I guess there is
limited reason to continue I will just state where I am at.
I do not see the path that allows GPL to reach through the LGPL code and
affect the proprietary application?
We have gLib Applications that are not licensed as GPL (they use various
It seems to me as if this all creates an unhealthy scenario that would
allow me to get around having to use commercial MySQL.
Not sure if they will respond but sent an email to licensing at the FSF
asking about the Prop->LGPL->GPL scenario
Actually I am not clear on how a derived work of an GPL product can be
licensed under LGPL?
I asked them about that as well.
(I didn't ask them directly but since MySQL++ was originally calling
LGPL MySQL, now that MySQL has changed to GPL, doesn't MySQL++ need to)
I'll leave you all alone as this is taken you into debian land :)
but I do appreciate the thought provoking and educational input.
If I get any response from FSF I will update you all if interested
From: Warren Young [mailto:mysqlpp@stripped]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:53 PM
To: MySQL++ Mailing List
Subject: Re: License Question
Hardy, Allan wrote:
> Proprietary app ->
> dynamically linked to LGPL mysql++ ->
> dynamically linked to GPL licensed mysql
> Since the LGPL woul isolate the Proprietary App from the GPL copyleft
Ah, no. The most restrictive license always obtains.
If your statement were the case, then on Linux, the LGPL nature of glibc
would free a lot of apps from needing to be GPL.
MySQL++ Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus