6/17    [continued LGPL thread]
        \_ Option 2 doesn't work, because you can't make an LGPL wrapper to
           a GPL'd library.  The wrapper itself must be licensed under the
           GPL too.
             \_ This is not correct. You can create lgpl wrappers for
                gpl libraries. If you read the lgpl it allows you to
                dual license your code (gpl does not) so you can have
                the wrapper avail under gpl and lgpl which solves this
                problem.
                \_ The GPL does not prevent you from dual-licensing your
                   *own* code.  Dual-licensing doesn't apply here anyway.
                   Your wrapper--by linking to the GPL'd library--is a
                   derivative work.  As a derivative work, the authors of
                   the GPL'd library have partial ownership of it.  You
                   can't dual-license your wrapper without their
                   permission.  Hence, your wrapper must be *solely* GPL'd
                   if distributed, and now you're back at square one.
                   \_ Okay, I think I understand now. Please see below
                      (... wasted a bunch of time ...)
        \_ Like I said on the original thread.  The whole GPL thing is a big
           fucking mess.  No one truly knows what is and is not a violation and
           can't and won't until a court settles it.  In the meantime do what
           you think is the right thing and don't sweat it.  IMO, distributing
           the gpl code & license with your project is perfectly ok.
        \_ Okay, I wasted a bunch of time reading about this. There seem to
           be two conflicting pov. The FSF pov is that if you use a gpl lib
           that doesn't contain the following exception:
           http://tinyurl.com/34y7o (gnu.org)
           then the resulting program must be gpl'ed.
           There is another pov which is that if your program dynamically
           links with the library then you can release your program under
           bsd w/o problems. The closest analogy I could find was that
           dynamic linking is like references in a book: w/o the source of
           the ref. you cannot understand the reference but the person
           making the ref. is not creating a "derivative work" simply by
           saying look in book a on pg x for a complete discussion.
           I have come to the conclusion that the GPL is stupid and that
           the only reasonable open src stuff is licensed under BSD or
           X/MIT.