Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 16.03.2008, 07:49 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort: > >> Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch a écrit : >> >>> Hi Jean; >>> >>> Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort: >>> >>>> Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only >>>> libraries? >>>> >>> This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how major it is. I >>> have to admit that it is however not a theoretical problem, since we >>> just found out that we do depend on one such library in Gnome: evince >>> uses libpoppler which is a fork of Xpdf, and it is GPL version 2 only. >>> >>> >> Other affected projects are Goffice (GPL-v2 only) and all those which >> depend on it, namely Gnumeric, Abiword, Gnucash and GChemUtils (the last >> also use OpenBabel, another GPL-v2 only library). Seems that all the >> projects I'm involved in would be affected. Some can be relicensed, but >> probably not all, just because some previous contributors seem to have >> disappeared from the earth surface. >> > > I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that programs > licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3 > allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but > excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me! >
It does say something about *GPL*, not about LGPL-3. You know, "GPL-compatible license" thing. Freedom or protection damn it. This Gtk relicensing thing is funny, by the way. Imagine this in a configure.ac PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GTK, gtk+-2.0 >= 2.6) PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GTK_LEGAL, gtk+-2.0 < 2.16, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([sorry but I won't do it, ask Gtk folks if you want to know why, I don't know why])]) Yevgen _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
