Re: [Duplicity-talk] Re: Duplicati

[Michael Terry]

2009/5/6 Kenneth Loafman <address@hidden>:
> Not sure about the rewrite part, but can it be an executable and be
> LGPL?  I thought L was for library and duplicati is not a library.

Nowadays, it actually stands for 'lesser' but yeah, it's designed for
libraries, so closed-source stuff can link with it and be compliant.
It's true that I'm not sure what the point of LGPL is for a program
that doesn't expect to be linked.  Maybe he has sub-libraries that are
LGPL and he just applied the license across the board.

-mt