On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 05:42 +0900, zxq9 wrote: > I hadn't considered that. And this makes sense as concerns complete > programs. > > I'm confident, however, that the intent of the GPLv3 when it was written > was not to hamstring the resurrection and improvement of GPLv2 code by > its own users with an intent to release to other users (the GPLv2 having > been written before any of this was thought up) Again, the intent that matters is that of the projects that chose to release under GPLv2-only and GPLv3-only, respectively, because neither wanted their work being used under the other license. > by way of forbidding > inclusion of new code which amounts to nothing more than a format > interpretation library but not an application or even a complete program > of its own. The GPL attitude toward system libraries seems to strongly > indicate this as well. But a format interpretation library is hardly > "system level" so it doesn't qualify for the exclusions provided for > system libraries explicit in the GPL. I feel your pain, and personally believe that FSF's claim about dynamic linking is bogus, under which assumption GPLvN would become essentially equivalent to LGPLvN. (Though like the Fedora project, I am playing it safe and not acting in reliance on this.) But with respect to the intent of QCad CE, based on their choice of GPLv2 and not LGPLv2, I can only presume that they did intend to prohibit the kind of linking you are now pursuing (to the extent possible under copyright law). Sorry. -- Matt _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
