Re: [eigen] Re: LGPLv3 for a C++ Pure Template Library ?

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

On Wednesday 06 February 2008 13:24:21 Michael Kesper wrote:
> Why don't you adress licensing@xxxxxxx ?

Because I didn't know about this list -- despite having looked for "licensing" 
and "mailing lists" on the website.

Anyway I have looked into this issue more closely in the meanwhile, and have 
concluded by myself that the LGPLv3 does solve the problems of the LGPLv2 
with respect to #included C++ code.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+