Comment 12 for bug 728426

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM, grofaty <email address hidden> wrote:
> Yes and no. LGPL license permits linking (calling library) from the main
> program code, but it does not permit to merge the code into one code
> that is no way to know which code is LGPLed and which is MIT. If you
> can't separate the code into library (external file) and you would still
> like to have one merged version of program, then LGPL requires
> relicensing all of the product to LGPL license. So the main question is:
> can you separate the LGPL code into library. If yes then printing can be
> written as main part of the code and just calling library from main
> program. If this library separation is not possible, then write an
> extension and put whole extension code under LGPL.

Well, the point point of license compatibility is whether code licensed under
two different licenses can be used together or not. If GPL and MIT are
compatible,
then why not LGPL and MIT?

Just FYI, Tomboy has MIT and GPL code mixed together.

Yes,there is a way to make out which code is GPL and which is MIT in the
source code - The license header. Every file in MIT licensed codebase should
have a license header - though LGPL/GPL codebase should also do that.

So all the Pinta would be under MIT and this printing file would be under MIT
with the license and copyright clearly stated at the top of the file.

"then LGPL requires relicensing all of the product to LGPL license"
I would like to see some cases or references to this problem.

I can still implement it as an extension. Will look into it