@gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:58:17 PM
Subject: Re: GPLv2 licensing issues
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:14:57 -0700 (PDT), Gregory John Casamento [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
All, I've written Brett Smith at the FSF to ask about exceptions or
any possible solutions to the issues we're
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:14:57 -0700 (PDT), Gregory John Casamento [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
All, I've written Brett Smith at the FSF to ask about exceptions or
any possible solutions to the issues we're discussing. I will post
relevant points when he replies to my email.
Any news on this?
В Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:32:43 -0400, Hubert Chathi написа:
I don't think that the combined work still violations LGPLv3, because
section 4 of the LGPLv3 allows you to release the combined works under
any license that you choose, provided that you do certain things, and
the library itself can
В Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:30:52 -0400, Hubert Chathi написа:
Just a thought that came to me, that I thought I'd throw out: one
possibility is to dual-license the GNUstep libraries under bath GPLv2
and LGPLv3 or later. This would allow us to keep GPLv2 applications
(the two big ones that I know
В Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:42:15 -0400, Hubert Chathi написа:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:08:52 + (UTC), Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or http://price.sourceforge.net/exception.html
What problems do you see with it?
IMVHO such an exception *might* fix one side of the problem, but the
resulting
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
В Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:42:15 -0400, Hubert Chathi написа:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:08:52 + (UTC), Yavor Doganov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
or http://price.sourceforge.net/exception.html
What problems do you see with it?
Thanks for raising the issue, and the summary.
В Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:51:08 -0400, Hubert Chathi написа:
or http://price.sourceforge.net/exception.html
I am not sure that such an exception is sufficient to eliminate the
incompatibility problem -- in fact, I fear that it may not have a legal
Hi!
On 11.04.2008, at 01:48, Hubert Chathi wrote:
Yes, I mentioned the possibility of adding an exception to the
applications' license in my original message.
Why can't the GNUstep framework add the exception similar to the one
in libobjc, so that applications can all link to it? I don't
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Hubert Chathi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what needs to be clarified. The compatibility table in
the GPL FAQ, written by the FSF, says that you can't link a GPLv2'd
application against a LGPLv3'd library, which is exactly the case we
have. It seems
Hubert Chathi wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:16:48 -0500 Stefan Bidigaray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we aren't going to get anywhere this way! I mentioned it on a
previous e-mail, the issue needs to be escalated to and clarified by
the FSF. They designed the licenses and know more than
Günther Noack wrote:
Why can't the GNUstep framework add the exception similar to the one in
libobjc, so that applications can all link to it?
Isn't LGPLv3 or later + exception kind-of the same thing as LGPLv2 or
later? If so, why change in the first place?
- Alexander Malmberg
On 10 Apr 2008, at 18:51, Hubert Chathi wrote:
If you have a GNUstep program that is licensed under the terms of the
GPLv2 *only*, you should do one of the following (in no particular
order):
- change the license to GPLv2 or later
- change the license to GPLv3 (or later)
- change the
I am still not sure whether this problem actually exists. As far as I
understand the GPL it only transfers to libraries that are statically
linked to it. GNUstep base, gui and back (normally) get linked
dynamically and to my understanding this should not cause any problem.
But I surely am no
Graham J. Lee wrote:
Presumably, distributing binaries linked against earlier, pre-LGPLv3 GNUstep
libraries is acceptable too (whether or not anyone likes the idea); I guess
the licence change wasn't propagated back through the SCM history to
retroactively apply to earlier revisions of
doh
-- Forwarded message --
From: Matt Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: GPLv2 licensing issues
To: Fred Kiefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Fred Kiefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am still not sure whether
Hubert Chathi wrote:
Unfortunately, the LGPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 [1] by itself,
since the LGPLv3 adds extra restrictions, which means that if library B
is licensed under the terms of the LGPLv3, then A+B is undistributable.
[...]
Of course, this does not work if the application is
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:40:34 -0700, Matt Rice [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Fred Kiefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am still not sure whether this problem actually exists. As far as I
understand the GPL it only transfers to libraries that are statically
linked to
I think another good FAQ question to look at is:
*Can I release a program under the GPL which I developed using non-free
tools?*
Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or study
it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues concerning the
licensing of that
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:11:22 -0400, Hubert Chathi [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:13:32 +0200, Alexander Malmberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hubert Chathi wrote:
- terminal.app
If the GPL2/LGPL3 problems are real, this is problematic for
Terminal. The vt100 parsing code is
Hmm... I just got to this portion of the FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
And it seems that if you have a LGPLv3 library you cannot like a GPLv2 only
program to it. I guess I'm more confused now. I've always had the
understanding that GPL software can be
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:12:17 -0500, Stefan Bidigaray [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think another good FAQ question to look at is: *Can I release a
program under the GPL which I developed using non-free tools?*
[...]
However, if you link non-free libraries with the source code, that
would be an
21 matches
Mail list logo
