Hi Gerald, I'll try to explain how I understood it:
On 02/26/2018 03:45 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > I must be missing something.... what is sad? It has been stated that > CUPS does > not need any GPLv2 only component for building or linking. The issue is about packages, which have GPLv2only license and they need CUPS libraries for building or linking. > Tom's comment stated: > > "Thus, pretty much everyone is in agreement that GPLv3 + Apache 2.0 is > a fine combination. > If the combination is GPLv2 or later, then you can resolve any > concerns about compatibility between GPLv2 and > Apache 2.0 by using the GPLv3 license in situations where that work is > combined with an Apache 2.0 work." > > and > > "As far as LGPL compatibility goes, because the LGPL provides > permission for anyone to use the LGPL > work under the terms of the GPL (section 3 of the LGPLv2 and section > 2.b of the LGPLv3). LGPLv2 permits the > terms of GPLv2 or GPLv3 (or any future version of GPL) to be applied > in place of the LGPLv2 terms. > LGPLv3 permits the terms of GPLv3 to be applied in place of the > LGPLv3 terms. > Thus, LGPLv2 + Apache 2.0 _and_ LGPLv3 + Apache 2.0 are considered > compatible." > > So what's the issue? > I think the problem's description lies lower in Tom's email - begins "So, that leaves us with GPL version 2 (only) and Apache 2.0. In this scenario, it is worth noting a few things:" -- Zdenek Dohnal Associate Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
