[Fedora-legal-list] Linking an LGPL library statically to an GPL program

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 11/16/2009 06:03 PM, Christian Krause wrote:
>
>> I'm a little bit unsure about:
>> - Does the fact, that the library is statically linked, affects the
>> compatibility or does the same rules apply as for dynamic linking?
>
> For the purposes of Fedora's licensing, no, it doesn't really make a
> difference.
>
>> - Since the LGPL sources would be in the src.rpm, do we have to mention
>> both licenses in the spec file?
>
> You can, but you do not need to. We determine License based on the binaries:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
>
> Since the binary is a combination of the LGPLv2+ static library and the
> GPLv2+ application code, while technically, the resulting work is
> LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+, by honoring the terms of the GPLv2+, you are always
> honoring the terms of LGPLv2+, so it is not necessary to explicitly list
> it in the License tag.
>

Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+.
Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ?

Orcan