Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (233 mails)

[Marcus Meissner <meissner@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:17:17AM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
> On 01/16/2010 03:48 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:20:13PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
> > >
> > >     
> > > > > Hi, I've come across  my first license problem with ghostscript-8.70, it
> > > > > has switched to GPL v3. There are a lot of packages that depend on
> > > > > ghostscript, lilypond being one and apparently TeXLive sub packages. How
> > > > > are problems like this resolved. Having an old ghostscript version isn't
> > > > > good for attracting people to the distro. I'm totally in the dark about
> > > > > these things but as a packager I need to know about them.
> > > > >         
> > > >   
> > > >       
> > > As long as the program calls "gs" via system it is just use and does
> > > not impose license requirements the calling programs.
> > >
> > > Most of those programs do it that way.
> > >
> > > I am not aware that ghostscript exposes libraries?
> > >
> > >     
> > > > > I am not aware that ghostscript exposes libraries?
> > > > >         
> > > >   
> > > >       
> > > Yes, it does -lgs and -lijs, package ghostscript-library
> > >
> > > The above is added for the factory list
> > >
> > > This post follows :-
> > >
> > > I have a complete gs-8.70 package waiting to be submitted but what
> > > happens in a case like this? Is ghostscript doomed to packman or even
> > > worse out of linux altogether or is there a way of sorting this issue
> > > out. Fedora already has gs-8.70, maybe they overlooked the fact that the
> > > license had changed. It would take a few linux distros to make the
> > > ghostscript people change back to v2.
> > > List of affected files, I can find :-
> > > Uses gs_lib :            capi4hylafax, hylafax
> > >     
> > Those will just call the binary, so it is "use".
> >
> >   
> > > Uses pstoraster :     gutenprint
> > >     
> > same.
> >
> >   
> > > Uses  libgs.so :        foomatic-filters,  libspectre1
> > > Uses  libijs.so:          gutenprint
> > >     
> > foomatic-filters is GPLv2 or later (so I think it can use GPLv3 libraries).
> > libspectre same.
> > gutenprint same.
> >
> > I will try to find a verbal statement from our license guys next week, but
> > to my not so trained eyes it looks fine to do.
> >
> > Ciao, Marcus
> >
> >   
> I've done some research and gnu.org has a chart which states that GPLv2
> only, take note they specify only so I'm not sure if the license needs
> to state only, is incompatible with any GPLv3 or LGPLv3 license.
> Libspectre is fine because it has a statement in it's README that says
> "GPLv2 or later" which is compatible. Foomatic-filters on the other hand
> doesn't state anything other than "copyright (C) 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999,
> 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc." and has a
> copy of GPLv2, so whether this implies later or only is something for
> the legal department. Looking at the chart GPLv2 only isn't 100%
> compatible with any other license. Foomatic-filters cannot exist without
> libgs so if there is a problem they need to address it.
> Regards
> Dave P

The sources of foomatic-filters have a copy of COPYING as only indication of 
its license. This COPYING file suggests "GPL v2 or later" and as the
individual sources files do not have copyright headers this mentioning
applies. The author should put COPYING headers as suggested in his .c and .h
files of course.

foomatic-filters has: 
License:        GPL v2 or later

in its RPM header. This also matches the internal license scan results.


I talked to our license guys and for "GPL v2 or later" using gs in GPL
v3 mode is fine. If those in turn provide libraries, they are however
GPL v3 after compilation.

So foomatic-filters is fine to use with the libgs library.

Ciao, Marcus
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx