Debarshi Ray wrote:
> GStreamer applications either opt for LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions
> because they might end up using proprietary or otherwise unfavourably
> licensed GStreamer plugins .
Why would we care? We do not ship those proprietary plugins.
Are you going to tell us next that the
> Again, if they are doing this then they are already violating the GPL
> by shipping GPLv2 code that links to non-free software. The v2 versus
> v3 thing is a red herring.
And yet again, you forgot about the "GPLv2+ with exceptions".
I think the both of us can keep doing this dance for ever, bu
On 11/27/2012 10:08 AM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> 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 G
Debarshi Ray writes:
> [...] 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? [...]
It is not *our* problem.
- FChE
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://adm
On 11/26/2012 08:29 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius said:
Well, dlopen'ed modules/plugins aren't directly linked, i.e. there is
only an indirect dependency. AFAICT (IANAL), this is what makes the
legal key-difference.
IANAL either, but neither is what matters in the leg
> 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 widesp
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 20:13 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 06:29 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> Why does it matter? Their code hasn't changed, and has not become
> GPLv3. The package is GPLv3+.
If the license of libraw changed significantly, the libraw package
should be updated
On 11/26/2012 06:29 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
Why does it matter? Their code hasn't changed, and has not become GPLv3.
The package is GPLv3+.
>>>
>>> It matters because Shotwell links to GStreamer.
>>>
>>> GStreamer applications either opt for LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions
>>> beca
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius said:
> Well, dlopen'ed modules/plugins aren't directly linked, i.e. there is
> only an indirect dependency. AFAICT (IANAL), this is what makes the
> legal key-difference.
IANAL either, but neither is what matters in the legal sense; "derived
work" is what matte
On 11/26/2012 07:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 07:40:10PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am not familiar with gstreamer's internals, but AFAIIK, these
plugins aren't linked, but "dlopen'ed".
Otherwise these "plugins" would not be "plugins" ;)
The difference is an impl
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 07:40:10PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I am not familiar with gstreamer's internals, but AFAIIK, these
> plugins aren't linked, but "dlopen'ed".
>
> Otherwise these "plugins" would not be "plugins" ;)
The difference is an implementation detail, and so depending on it f
On 11/26/2012 07:29 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
Why does it matter? Their code hasn't changed, and has not become GPLv3.
The package is GPLv3+.
It matters because Shotwell links to GStreamer.
GStreamer applications either opt for LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions
because they might end up using p
>>> Why does it matter? Their code hasn't changed, and has not become GPLv3.
>>> The package is GPLv3+.
>>
>> It matters because Shotwell links to GStreamer.
>>
>> GStreamer applications either opt for LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions
>> because they might end up using proprietary or otherwise
On 11/26/2012 04:26 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>>> If that is the case, then has Yorba been notified of that? I doubt they
>>> would suddenly want their code to become GPLv3 instead of LGPLv2+.
>>
>> Why does it matter? Their code hasn't changed, and has not become GPLv3.
>> The package is GPLv3+
>> If that is the case, then has Yorba been notified of that? I doubt they
>> would suddenly want their code to become GPLv3 instead of LGPLv2+.
>
> Why does it matter? Their code hasn't changed, and has not become
> GPLv3. The package is GPLv3+.
It matters because Shotwell links to GStreamer.
On 11/26/2012 10:14 AM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> I came across what looks like a possible licensing issue with LibRaw and
> applications that link to it. I am not totally sure that there is a problem,
> but I have enough reason to have doubts. I welcome any clarifications and
> advice.
>
> LibRaw'
I came across what looks like a possible licensing issue with LibRaw and
applications that link to it. I am not totally sure that there is a problem,
but I have enough reason to have doubts. I welcome any clarifications and
advice.
LibRaw's License tag was changed from "LGPLv2 or CDDL" to GPLv3 wh
17 matches
Mail list logo
