Re: Lost in licensing - is the following strategy water-proof?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Dear open-source-fellows,

Please do not confuse us with this movement, we are part of the Free
software movement, and promote freedom.  See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for
further information.

   I started developing a project some time ago and want to make it
   public in the near future. Therefore, I tried to find the most
   suitable licensing strategy for my stuff which (optionally) depends on
   a whole bunch of supporting libraries, which means I have find a
   license which is compatible to

   1. Artistic licensing (I link to Blitz++, which is licensed that way,
   this is transparent to the end user which should also be able to take
   advantage of using Blitz++ structures and algorithms in his derived
   work based on my library)
   2. BSD-sytle licensing (I make heavy use of VTK code, so)

Please note that there are many so called "BSD-style" licenses, I will
assume that you mean the Modified 3-term one here.

   3. Apache licensing (I link to Xerces C++, this is not visible to the
   end user)
   4. LGPL-licensing (lots of other stuff)

   None of this libraries will be distributed by myself, since I did not
   altered any source code of these libs.

   My actual question is: What license am I able to use for my own lib

>From the list you have, you can use any licensing terms you wish.

   Is usage of the LGPL compatible with linkage to the Xerces C++
   library?

Yes.

   May I even license my library under a BSD-style license?

Yes.

   I googled for all of this stuff, but I'd only found very
   contradictory answers, especially regarding the (in)compability of
   GNU-style and Apache-style licenses in particular.

Did you try the GPL FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html?

Cheers.