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 licen
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 ex
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
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:16:16 +0200 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 it. GNUstep base, gui and back (normally) get linked
> dynamicall
> It seems like not many people know about the licensing problem that we
> have between GPLv2 and LGPLv3 (I didn't even know the problem existed
> until a month ago), so here is a bit of an explanation of the problem:
>
> Briefly, the GPLv2 says (among other things) that if you link against a
> l
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:01:54 +0200 (CEST) "Nicola Pero"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html:
>
> > I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or
> > Visual Basic) and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is
> > dynamically linking my progr
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 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:13:32 +0200, Alexander Malmberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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
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 parsin
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 dynamically
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:41:20 -0500 "Stefan Bidigaray"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm... I just got to this portion of the FAQ:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
Ah, thanks. That's a very helpful table.
> And it seems that if you have a LGPLv3 library you cannot like
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 anyone else what are the
restrictions.
Stefan
___
Gnustep-
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 anyone else
> w
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
В Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:08:52 +, Yavor Doganov написа:
>> I mentioned it on a previous e-mail, the issue needs to be escalated to
>> and clarified by the FSF.
>
> As Hubert explained, there is nothing to clarify.
Actually, this particular problem is one of the main reasons why the
relicensing
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 se
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
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 th
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 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:08:52 + (UTC), Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> 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 t
- Original Message
From: Hubert Chathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 6:42:15 PM
Subject: Re: GPLv2 licensing issues
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:08:52 + (UTC), Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Thanks for raising the issue, and th
gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 7:14:57 PM
Subject: Re: GPLv2 licensing issues
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.
Th
On 12 Apr 2008, at 01:10, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
Here is the email I sent...
Brett,
We're having some issues after the move to LGPLv3. Specifically
there are some applications which are GPLv2 only.
Wouldit be possible to get an exception for GNUstep which would
allow this.
Hubert Chathi wrote:
Crap. I was hoping that poppler/xpdf was the only truly problemmatic
case. Would it be feasible to steal code from xterm instead? There's
also iTerm that the Étoilé people have started work porting, which is
licensed under GPLv2 or later.
I also found rote, which is a t
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:31:44 +0200, Fred Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yes, you are right this table Stefan send a link to
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility) makes it
> quite clear. Our case it the one in the bottom left corner. We either
> need to get all the appli
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
res
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 y
В Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:41:36 -0700, Matt Rice написа:
> but I thoght that the (l)gplv2 conflicted with the (l)gplv3 and not the
> other way around
I don't think so:
, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
| GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2
|
| Please note that GPLv2 is
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:07:16 + (UTC), Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> 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 d
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 kno
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?
To: gnustep-dev@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 s
On 30 Apr 2008, at 23:58, Hubert Chathi wrote:
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 w
34 matches
Mail list logo
