[eigen] Re: LGPLv3 for a C++ Pure Template Library ?
jacob at math.jussieu.fr
Wed Feb 6 16:18:47 UTC 2008
On Wednesday 06 February 2008 13:24:21 Michael Kesper wrote:
> Why don't you adress licensing at fsf.org ?
Because I didn't know about this list -- despite having looked for "licensing"
and "mailing lists" on the fsf.org website.
Anyway I have looked into this issue more closely in the meanwhile, and have
concluded by myself that the LGPLv3 does solve the problems of the LGPLv2
with respect to #included C++ code.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Discussion