On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+.
> Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ?
There is nothing in the GPL that requires you to put binaries under GPL.
In fact, you can't even do this in many cases. You just need to follow the
conditions in section 3 for the binary.
That assumes that the binaries are not considered "derived work", on
which there is no general consensus. There are opinions in both ways.
If you ever like to convert LGPLv2 code to GPL, you of course cannot
to GPLv2+ but only to GPLv2.
Now this contradicts spot's conclusion. Where is the catch?