Re: [eigen] Re: [gnu.org #355348] Fwd: LGPLv3 for a C++ Pure Template Library ?

[Benoit Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Brett,

Many thanks for your answer. Reading the LGPL3 text I had come to a 
similar conclusion, but it definitively is useful to have your informed 
confirmation.

Best regards,

Benoit Jacob

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Brett Smith via RT wrote:

> > I would like to know if the LGPLv3 can be suitable for a C++ pure
> > template library, where all the code is in headers?
>
> Benoît,
>
> Shane Coughlan from FSF Europe passed your question on to me.  Thanks
> for asking about this.
>
> LGPLv3 is perfectly suited for C++ template libraries.  This is mostly
> thanks to section 3, which addresses exactly this sort of case.  When
> application developers use such header files whose materials are
> incorporated directly into the object code, they only need to provide
> notice that they're using your library, and include a copy of LGPLv3
> with their application.  Thus, there's no longer the technology mismatch
> that the libstdc++ licensing FAQ discusses about LGPLv2.1.
>
> I hope this addresses your concerns.  If you have further questions,
> please feel free to contact us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Brett Smith
> Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation