> On 1 Jun 2018, at 08:28, Edward Welbourne wrote:
>
> Em segunda-feira, 17 de abril de 2017, às 04:24:25 PDT, Konstantin Tokarev
> escreveu:
1. Is it still legal to incorporate "inline functions and templates"
into code not covered by LGPLv3? In particular, I'm interested in
qAsC
Em segunda-feira, 17 de abril de 2017, às 04:24:25 PDT, Konstantin Tokarev
escreveu:
>>> 1. Is it still legal to incorporate "inline functions and templates"
>>> into code not covered by LGPLv3? In particular, I'm interested in
>>> qAsConst
On 17 Apr 2017, at 18:07, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> The
The LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt files should get removed from our sources. LGPLv3 covers
this case directly.
Cheers,
Lars
> On 17 Apr 2017, at 18:07, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> Em segunda-feira, 17 de abril de 2017, às 04:24:25 PDT, Konstantin Tokarev
> escreveu:
>> 1. Is it still legal to incorporat
Em segunda-feira, 17 de abril de 2017, às 04:24:25 PDT, Konstantin Tokarev
escreveu:
> 1. Is it still legal to incorporate "inline functions and templates" into
> code not covered by LGPLv3? In particular, I'm interested in qAsConst
The LGPLv3 text contains the equivalent exception. See LICENSE.L
Hello,
There is LGPL_EXCEPTION.txt that says:
-
As an additional permission to the GNU Lesser General Public License version
2.1, the object code form of a "work that uses the Library" may incorporate
material from a header file that is part of the Library. You may distribute
such ob
