This is the mail archive of the gsl-discuss@sourceware.org mailing list for the GSL project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Licensing question

From: Brian Gough <bjg at network-theory dot co dot uk>
To: Rhys Ulerich <rhys dot ulerich at gmail dot com>
Cc: gsl-discuss at sourceware dot org
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:04:11 +0100
Subject: Re: Licensing question
References: <4a00655d0906131139y1bd3a168x36fc1d113d73d870@mail.gmail.com>

At Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:39:33 -0500,
Rhys Ulerich wrote:
> I've got a licensing question.  An individual has some nice routines
> that I believe fill gaps in the GSL integration functionality.
> These routines are LGPL.  Is it possible for the individual to make
> a GPL/LGPL one-off release that could be pulled into GSL without
> "screwing up" the LGPL licensing he currently uses?

As I understand it, this wouldn't be needed - it is not necessary to
make a separate release.  Any code under the LGPL can always be used
under the GPL by anyone, there are clauses in the LGPL which
explicitly allow this.

I'm assuming we are talking about version 3 of the GPL here, or
version 2 with the "any later version" permission.

> Specifically, could he continue to update and release his own
> routine modifications under only the LGPL?

Yes, I wouldn't see that being a problem.  

-- 
Brian Gough

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Licensing question
  - From: Rhys Ulerich

References:
- Licensing question
  - From: Rhys Ulerich

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]