The copyright and licensing (GNU LGPL) info of LinBox is in
It then continues with a copy of the GPL (not LGPL). Also COPYING actually contains the GPL (not LGPL).
Something should change to resolve this inconsistency. So, are we stridently free software or permissive free software? I vote for permissive.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linbox-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linbox-devel...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to linbox...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/linbox-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Brice Boyer http://www-polsys.lip6.fr/~boyer/
"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library.
This is why we used the Lesser GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another—no problem for them, only for us."
I'd say that case fits linbox well. It would be beneficial if a proprietary CAS used, and contributed back to, linbox.
That was the idea... And for lgpl you need gpl licence file... The issue was not lgpl but gpl 3