On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 13:53 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > $ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript ghostscript-
> > gtk --qf="%{NAME}: %{LICENSE}" | grep -vP '\bGPL(v3|\S*\+)' | sort
[...]
> > baekmuk-ttf-fonts-ghostscript: Baekmuk
> > cjkuni-fonts-ghostscript: Arphic
> > hevea: QPL
> > HippoDraw: GPLv2
> > ImageMagick: ImageMagick
> > libgnomeprint22: LGPLv2+ and BSD
> > lilypond: GPLv2
> > printer-filters: Public Domain
> > redhat-lsb: GPLv2
> > tetex-prosper: LPPL
> > tgif: QPL
> > transfig: MIT
> > xournal: GPLv2
>
> There is a handy GPL compatibility matrix here:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>
> It makes it clear that GPLv2 code using or linking against GPLv3 code is
> a no-no, so all the GPLv2 packages on that list are indeed in trouble,
[...]
> It says that LGPLv2+ code can use or link against GPLv3 code only if you
> can effectively re-license it as GPLv3 (which the LGPL allows, but the
> package may have _other_ licensing conflicts if you treat it as GPLv3).
No, please look more closely. The above is a list of packages that
*use* or *require* ghostscript, not that link to it.
See my most recent contribution to this thread to see the correct list
based on requirements for libgs.so.8 and libijs-0.35.so.
> An interesting side-question here is what license tag we should use for
> an app whose license text states GPLv2+, but which we are linking
> against a GPLv3+ library, effectively meaning that its license for our
> purposes is GPLv3+...
Yes, indeed.
Tim.
*/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
