[OT] open-source license issues

[Francisco Almeida]

== Quote from Kagamin (spam at here.lot)'s article
> spir Wrote:
> > There is a point I don't understand: if I'm right, LGPL as well as all other
> > "open source", not strictly free-software, licenses allow using licensed
> > software even for "privative" (proprietary) work. But they wouldn't allow using
> > software for work licensed under other open-source licenses like the Boost
license?
> > Where's the bug?
> They can be used, but they can't become proprietary or Boost licensed.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this last statement. AFAIK, LGPL source code may
be used for licensed software, as long as it is compiled so as to keep the
binaries separate (DLL or shared object).