On 4/17/07, Simo Sorce <ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So pigment and elisa don't use _any_ other GPLed code that is not owned by themselves (libraries?) ?
For the purposes of the review process... i don't think this question matters because gstreamer is itself licensed under LGPL so using closed libraries inside gstreamer plugins as fluendo does is an acceptable practice allowed by the LGPL. I think this exceptional clause is aimed primarily at people who would like to distribute elisa with additional binary only gstreamer plugins... which Fedora isn't going to be doing in the official tree. I also think the fact that the additional exceptional clause is revocable by any downstream entity makes its okay to allow for the purposes of the review process. If the exception is found to be invalid legally then such a ruling only hinders the distributors of the non-GPL'd fluendo plugins who were relying on that particular exception clause. Since fedora does not distribute the code which must rely on the rights of the exceptional clause, the exceptional clause does not come into play with regard to how elisa and pigment are to be built, packaged or distributed inside the Fedora repository. But here again, I'm not a laywer, and while the consensus opinion of the developers who've had experience with exceptional GPL clause appear to think this is not a particularly exotic version, I'm still interested in a competent legal ruling. -jef -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
