Re: LibRaw: possible license issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> OK, so there are some proprietary or otherwise encumbered plugins
> that might not be GPLv3-compatible but might be compatible with GPLv2.

You again missed the "GPLv2 with exceptions" part.

>> Plus, this practice of either using LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions for
>> applications is so widespread in GStreamer land (Totem, PiTiVi, Rhythmbox,
>> Transmageddon, etc.) that I was not comfortable with having a situation
>> where the application silently ends up under a different license due to
>> another library.
> 
> I don't think that's a problem because the whole purpose of the
> "or any later version of the GPL, at your choice" is to allow
> the GPL to be updated.

You don't think that it is a problem that our downstreams might inadvertently
end up violating the GPL by shipping GPLv3 code that links to non-free
software? I am not saying they are, but the chances are too high for me to
take this lightly.

Cheers,
Debarshi

-- 
There are two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming
things and off-by-one errors.

Attachment: pgp_dW6S2sYCP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux