[Insight-developers] Linear algebra licensing and ITK 3.18 Release

[kent williams]

I think perhaps the problem with incorporating LGPL code is that while LPGL
doesn't force all derivative works to be open source, I think it is not
fully compatible with a BSD-style public domain license. I'm not a lawyer
and would sooner eat broken glass tacos than pore over the license text, but
I think that's the gist of it.

GPL is like abstinence-only sex-education in that both try to enforce an
unrealistic ideal. That's my only point.  And if you're in France, the US
debate over things like sex education probably looks complètement fous.


On 3/23/10 4:20 AM, "Alexandre GOUAILLARD" <agouaillard at gmail.com> wrote:

> luis , I don't think I would write it better than you, but I thought
> you could link against LGPL code and still be "safe".
> One exemple I would take is Qt.
> 
> Then, would it be "safe" to distribute a library in itk/utilities,
> that would be under lpgl, making sure that the code is always only
> compiled as a library and linked against?
> (side question, is it actually ok to statistically link then, or would
> it restrict the compilation to a shared library mode in order to keep
> ITK main code under BSD ?)
> 
> what do you think?
> 
> alex.
> PS: abstinence-only sex-ed is like GPL? or one lead to the other? but
> then, which one to which one! oh well, kent, you got me confused there
> :-)
> 
>