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