License - LGPL or GPL?

[Rasjid Wilcox]

Hi all,

Just checking the license of Cork.  The main file says LGPLv3+, but the sqlalchemy_backend.py has GPLv3+, as do most of the other files.

Has the license changed and the files just not been updated?

Cheers,

Rasjid.

[Federico Ceratto]

Thanks for your email.

I've just corrected the headers in those files to the correct value: LGPLv3+

I plan to release the next version soon - once the functional test for the new code changes is running successfully.

Thanks,

Federico

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cork-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cork-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to cork-d...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cork-discuss/4fc52ee3-25bc-4a18-a4dd-6c9378e8ea1a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
Federico

[Henry Longmore]

With bottle released under the MIT license, but bottle-cork released under LGPLv3+, does that mean using bottle-cork effectively turns that MIT license into an LGPLv3+ license? Or, could bottle-cork be released under the MIT license and still achieve your licensing strategy?

Regards,

Henry

[Federico Ceratto]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Henry Longmore <he...@longmore.org> wrote:
> With bottle released under the MIT license, but bottle-cork released under
> LGPLv3+, does that mean using bottle-cork effectively turns that MIT license
> into an LGPLv3+ license?

Of course not. Bottle (as well as any other library you are using)
would remain under MIT license.
Also, your web application, which relies on Bottle and Cork, can be
under any license you want, including closed source.

--
Federico

[Henry Longmore]

Thanks for your reply Federico. I'm not accustomed to interpreting the nuances of LGPL-style licenses in the context of web applications; I ought to have thought about it a little longer and the "Of course not" would have been obvious to me.

Regards,

Henry