Comment 14 for bug 728426

Manish, sorry for confusion in my post #11 I was responding to Robert's post #9, but in the middle of this posting you have posted new post me anaware of your post, so confusion was made, because you thought that I responded to your post, but I wasn't. Sorry, I should make a reference in my post.

I totaly agree with Robert in post #13. LGPL code cann't be integrated into MIT code. MIT license is not violated in this case, but LGPL license is. Like I have written in second paragraph of #7: "If you would like to combine the work of two programs that uses different licenses both licenses must permit this combining." MIT permits combining from LGPL, but LGPL does not permit to be combined into MIT.

The difference beetween GPL and LGPL: In you program you are allowed to LINK your main program to ouside LGPL licensed library, but in your program you are not allowed to link to GPL library (or any other code). GPL and LGPL both have the same restrictions about changing the code. If you change the GPL or LGPL code you have to license derivated work as GPL/LGPL.

Because you can bundle LGPL library and MIT program into program's bundle (like EXE installation file in Windows), you are also permited to bundle the LGPL extension with MIT program into program's bundle. So if you would really really really like to play safe, then extension is fine.

What kind of decision you will make (extension or integrate printing into main code linking to external LGPL library) is your developers decision and decision of maintainer what kind of code will he accept when merging your code into official Pinta's branch. I am just trying to help us to better understand the licensing issues.

OK, back to main topic of licensing. If decision is made to write extension using LGPL code then whole extension is probably the easiest way to license as LGPL (but it is not required if in your extension you will just link - call functions from - library in this case you can license your extension with any kind of license even closed-source if you like and you will not violate the LGPL license). But I don't guaranty that maintainer will accept closed-source extension and distribute is inside a Pinta installation bundle program.

If decision is made to write printing support into main Pinta program, then LGPL code MUST be in separate library and just link your main Pinta's code to library, because if not then you are violating the LGPL license.

P.S. I would not refer to Tomboy as a good license solving project reading the bugs reports like this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/tomboy/+bug/190862 makes me very sceptical about license knowledge of Toboy authors.