No
GNU General Public License v2.0 is strong copyleft; combining it into a GNU Lesser GPL v3.0 project would force the combined work to be GNU General Public License v2.0 (not GNU Lesser GPL v3.0). If your project must remain GNU Lesser GPL v3.0, avoid GNU General Public License v2.0 code.
| License | Family | Patent grant |
|---|---|---|
| GNU General Public License v2.0 (GPL-2.0) | strong-copyleft | No (implicit at most) |
| GNU Lesser GPL v3.0 (LGPL-3.0) | weak-copyleft | Yes |
GNU General Public License v2.0: Strong copyleft: derivative works distributed must also be GPL-2.0.
GNU Lesser GPL v3.0: Same library-linking permission as LGPL-2.1, with GPLv3's patent provisions inherited.
If you found this page because you're trying to figure out whether shipping a particular dependency is safe, the answer above is a starting point — not a substitute for reading the actual licenses or talking to a lawyer when stakes are high.
LicenseHound walks every transitive dependency in your repo, maps each to its SPDX license, and flags pairs like this one in PR comments. The CLI is free; the team dashboard is paid.