[opensuse-factory] Re: [opensuse-packaging] is ghostscript able to be updated to 8.70 was GPL v3 question
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 Uses pstoraster : gutenprint Uses libgs.so : foomatic-filters, libspectre1 Uses libijs.so: gutenprint Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
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
Thanks Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:44:12 +0200 Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
So probably it is best to ask this "Free Software Foundation, Inc.", if they would be so kind to clarify the license of foomatic-filters, or if they would relicense it under GPLv2+. -- Stefan Seyfried "Any ideas, John?" "Well, surrounding them's out." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 01/18/2010 11:29 AM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:44:12 +0200 Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
So probably it is best to ask this "Free Software Foundation, Inc.", if they would be so kind to clarify the license of foomatic-filters, or if they would relicense it under GPLv2+.
I researched it over the weekend and unfortunately my mail was being bounced this morning. Update : GPLv2 isn't 100% compatible with anything but itself, GPLv2 or later is compatible with GPLv3. I contacted the foomatic people, who simply had a GPLv2 COPYING statement and they will add GPLv2 or later to their README, libspectre state GPLv2 or later so there isn't a problem there. Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Not only GPLv2 is incompatible with any other licenses, GPLv3 is also incompatible even with GPLv2. I expect a lot of trouble for distributors in the near future because of this fact.... Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2010 12:30 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Not only GPLv2 is incompatible with any other licenses, GPLv3 is also incompatible even with GPLv2. I expect a lot of trouble for distributors in the near future because of this fact....
Jörg
If they add "or later" to their licensing statement their problem dissapears, I've noticed that the top of the chart in gnu.orgs faq only has a column for GPLv3 or later and LGPLv3 or later. Omni's license is LGPLv2.1 or later and it is included in the build of the ghostscript (GPLv3) package's ghostscript-omni, what do I put in the spec file under License:, "GPLv3" or "LGPLv2.1 or later" Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
If they add "or later" to their licensing statement their problem dissapears, I've noticed that the top of the chart in gnu.orgs faq only has a column for GPLv3 or later and LGPLv3 or later. Omni's license is LGPLv2.1 or later and it is included in the build of the ghostscript (GPLv3) package's ghostscript-omni, what do I put in the spec file under License:, "GPLv3" or "LGPLv2.1 or later"
The problem is that the German law (and probably all European law systems as well) forbid you to sign a contract where you don't know the conditions at the time you sign. Any OSS project that includes German developers (and this affects most) and that did not publish a new release _after_ GPLv3 did came out thus cannot be put under GPLv3 - even if it claims "GPLv2 or any later". Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:19:50PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
If they add "or later" to their licensing statement their problem dissapears, I've noticed that the top of the chart in gnu.orgs faq only has a column for GPLv3 or later and LGPLv3 or later. Omni's license is LGPLv2.1 or later and it is included in the build of the ghostscript (GPLv3) package's ghostscript-omni, what do I put in the spec file under License:, "GPLv3" or "LGPLv2.1 or later"
The problem is that the German law (and probably all European law systems as well) forbid you to sign a contract where you don't know the conditions at the time you sign.
But GPL is a licence, not a contract. Does this still apply? I wonder if the distinction is even meaningful in European law. It would be great to read some article by a lawyer on this, it's an interesting aspect I've never thought of before. Petr "Pasky" Baudis -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:19:50PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The problem is that the German law (and probably all European law systems as well) forbid you to sign a contract where you don't know the conditions at the time you sign.
But GPL is a licence, not a contract. Does this still apply? I wonder if the distinction is even meaningful in European law.
A license _is_ a contract. There does not exist anything special that makes a license different from a plain contract.
It would be great to read some article by a lawyer on this, it's an interesting aspect I've never thought of before.
You need to ask a European lawyer as US lawywers tend to ignore the principles of law in the non-british influenced part of the world. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:04:11PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
A license _is_ a contract. There does not exist anything special that makes a license different from a plain contract.
Pamela Jones wrote on this here: http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/
You need to ask a European lawyer as US lawywers tend to ignore the principles of law in the non-british influenced part of the world.
What principle makes this different in Germany? -- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Roger Whittaker <roger@disruptive.org.uk> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 01:04:11PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
A license _is_ a contract. There does not exist anything special that makes a license different from a plain contract.
Pamela Jones wrote on this here: http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/
Even the heading is wrong.
You need to ask a European lawyer as US lawywers tend to ignore the principles of law in the non-british influenced part of the world.
What principle makes this different in Germany?
I am talking about the European law system. As far as I know, the UK is part of the EU and thus bound to the European law system. I cannot speak for the current UK law wich may or may not be in conflict with the EU. The US have a system that differs but the EU has twice as many inhabitants as the US and for this reason, it makes a lot of sense to look at Europe... Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:57:02PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Roger Whittaker <roger@disruptive.org.uk> wrote:
Pamela Jones wrote on this here: http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/
Even the heading is wrong.
She is generally thought to know something about these matters. Are you saying that what she has written here is entirely wrong, or just that it's inapplicable to Europe?
What principle makes this different in Germany?
I am talking about the European law system. As far as I know, the UK is part of the EU and thus bound to the European law system. I cannot speak for the current UK law wich may or may not be in conflict with the EU. The US have a system that differs but the EU has twice as many inhabitants as the US and for this reason, it makes a lot of sense to look at Europe...
Do you have a reference for how and why this is different in Europe? -- ======================== Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk http://disruptive.org.uk ======================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Roger Whittaker <roger@disruptive.org.uk> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:57:02PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Roger Whittaker <roger@disruptive.org.uk> wrote:
Pamela Jones wrote on this here: http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/
Even the heading is wrong.
She is generally thought to know something about these matters. Are you saying that what she has written here is entirely wrong, or just that it's inapplicable to Europe?
It's inapplicable to Europe
Do you have a reference for how and why this is different in Europe?
My lawyer told me that the claims from the US do not apply to Europe and from a talk to one of my collegues who is a US lawyer, it seems that the US law system requires a contract to have benefits for both sides and that the US law system clams that this is not the case for a contract used in a license. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Roger Whittaker<roger@disruptive.org.uk> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:57:02PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Roger Whittaker<roger@disruptive.org.uk> wrote:
Pamela Jones wrote on this here: http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/
Even the heading is wrong.
She is generally thought to know something about these matters. Are you saying that what she has written here is entirely wrong, or just that it's inapplicable to Europe?
It's inapplicable to Europe
Do you have a reference for how and why this is different in Europe?
My lawyer told me that the claims from the US do not apply to Europe and from a talk to one of my collegues who is a US lawyer, it seems that the US law system requires a contract to have benefits for both sides and that the US law system clams that this is not the case for a contract used in a license.
Fun, this is the first notion I hear of open source licenses being completely illegal, but it's surely fun to read this, makes you and all your claims vastly more believable! Robert Kaiser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Roger Whittaker schrieb:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:57:02PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Roger Whittaker <roger@disruptive.org.uk> wrote:
Pamela Jones wrote on this here: http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ Even the heading is wrong.
She is generally thought to know something about these matters. Are you saying that what she has written here is entirely wrong, or just that it's inapplicable to Europe?
What principle makes this different in Germany? I am talking about the European law system. As far as I know, the UK is part of the EU and thus bound to the European law system. I cannot speak for the current UK law wich may or may not be in conflict with the EU. The US have a system that differs but the EU has twice as many inhabitants as the US and for this reason, it makes a lot of sense to look at Europe...
Do you have a reference for how and why this is different in Europe?
Please have a look at: - http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2007072513105421 "The judgement in this conflict shows that the terms of the GNU GPL must be observed exactly, just like the clauses of every other contract." In German: - http://www.internetrecht-rostock.de/gpl-lg-muenchen.htm - http://www.bettinger.de/rechtsdatenbank/computerrecht/urteile.html "Dabei kam es vor allem auf die Frage an, ob Ziffer 4 GPL, die bei einem Verstoß gegen die in Ziffer 2 normierten Verhaltenscodex einen automatischen Rechterückfall vorsieht, den Vertragspartner des Verwenders nicht ungemessen beteiligt im Sinne von § 307 Abs.1 Satz 1 BGB)." "Vertrag" means contract. I'm not a lawyer, but stating that "GPL is a license, not a contract" might not be working this easily among companies within German jurisdirection. Best Regards Nico -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:42:29PM +0000, Roger Whittaker wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:57:02PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Roger Whittaker <roger@disruptive.org.uk> wrote:
What principle makes this different in Germany?
I am talking about the European law system. As far as I know, the UK is part of the EU and thus bound to the European law system. I cannot speak for the current UK law wich may or may not be in conflict with the EU. The US have a system that differs but the EU has twice as many inhabitants as the US and for this reason, it makes a lot of sense to look at Europe...
Do you have a reference for how and why this is different in Europe?
Actually, I have just now remembered an elaborate analysis of GPL validity under Czech law by a Czech lawyer; wrt. contract vs licence, he mentions it in http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/clanky/fre-en.html#tth_sEc2.2 This might make for an insightful read for those interested in the topic; I think countries within EU (except UK perhaps?) follow mostly the same principles. On the other hand, the general outcome of that paper seems to be that legal enforcability of GPL is very doubtful in EU legal system and it works more like a gentleman agreement where both the authors and users are expected to follow the licence spirit. In this context, perhaps the caveat about not being able to sign the contract you don't know isn't all that important, since it seems you aren't actually making *any* legally valid contract at all. Petr "Pasky" Baudis -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Jan 19, 10 11:30:00 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Not only GPLv2 is incompatible with any other licenses, GPLv3 is also incompatible even with GPLv2. I expect a lot of trouble for distributors in the near future because of this fact....
The cases where upstream exploited GPLv2 / GPLv3 incompatibilities on purpose are very rare, luckily. The incompatibility is often avoided by licensing under "GPLv2 or GPLv3 at your choice", which is perfect for the needs of a distributor. I don't share that kind of fear. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> wrote:
The cases where upstream exploited GPLv2 / GPLv3 incompatibilities on purpose are very rare, luckily. The incompatibility is often avoided by licensing under "GPLv2 or GPLv3 at your choice", which is perfect for the needs of a distributor.
There are a lot of project that use "GPLv2 onnly" and there are a lot of projects that use GNU libreadline. This is where I expect the highest probability for a problem. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 03:07:06PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> wrote:
The cases where upstream exploited GPLv2 / GPLv3 incompatibilities on purpose are very rare, luckily. The incompatibility is often avoided by licensing under "GPLv2 or GPLv3 at your choice", which is perfect for the needs of a distributor.
There are a lot of project that use "GPLv2 onnly" and there are a lot of projects that use GNU libreadline. This is where I expect the highest probability for a problem.
Almost all of these types of projects have already been notified by the distros, and there are a number of easy solutions for it, shipping readline-5 being the most obvious. If you know of any that have not been notified, please let me know. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
participants (11)
-
Dave Plater -
Dave Plater -
Greg KH -
Joerg.Schilling＠fokus.fraunhofer.de -
Juergen Weigert -
Marcus Meissner -
Nicolaus Millin -
Petr Baudis -
Robert Kaiser -
Roger Whittaker -
Stefan Seyfried