On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Michael Catanzaro <mike.catanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I have many questions here. > > Isn't this going to require relicensing a humongous number of applications? > We can't plausibly relicense so much. We would have to remove printing > support from GTK+, which is not going to happen. > > The system library exception might work for Fedora, but it would be unfair > for us to accept a solution that likely won't work for our other friends in > the free software ecosystem. > > Any idea why upstream seems to think we don't have to follow the license if > we use dynamic linking? It seems unlikely that this is accurate, right? > > Can upstream be persuaded to go with a BSD or MIT style license instead, to > avoid causing unnecessary problems for the free software community? > I suspect they want the patent termination clauses. In this age of software patent tomfoolery, I wouldn't blame them. Unfortunately, Apple has an utter hatred of licenses that enforce reciprocity, and it goes even further with licenses that prevent closed devices (aka GNU v3 license family). > Do we need to fork CUPS now? > I don't like this thought, but if this can't be resolved well, then a fork might be needed. Ideally, if they could be convinced of LGPLv2+ or ASL 2.0, then I think everyone would be satisfied. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
