On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving > the stove on. > > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > Here's the gist (in no particular order): > > - GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+" (executables, > libraries) > - This makes it incompatible with poppler's license (GPLv2 only, > inherited from xpdf at the time). The xpdf license has since been > amended to "GPLv2 or GPLv3" in version 3.03 and poppler will follow suit > in version 0.20. In the meantime, I'll build GIMP without poppler, > falling back to using the postscript plugin for importing PDF files. As > soon as poppler packages with the new license are available, I'll revert > to using it again. In this case the GIMP will have a file-pdf plugin > again which will be licensed as "GPLv2 or GPLv3" (as it's an exe of its > own). > > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license? if you combine them in a single package then I guess you'll have to drop the '+' from the license, as the non '+' components prevents it. IANAL of course. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
