Graham Percival wrote:
> What does this mean? I mean, *any* project would be a problem if
> they changed to a non-GPLv2-compatible license. Are they
> considering/planning such a change?
Not that I know of. The point is just that most Lilypond dependencies
are either called rather than linked t
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:46:32PM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> and potentially Pango (if it
> upgrades to LGPLv3+).
What does this mean? I mean, *any* project would be a problem if
they changed to a non-GPLv2-compatible license. Are they
considering/planning such a change?
Cheers,
- Graham
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 13:46:32 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
>> It looks like the problems are FreeType (GPLv2 only or GPL-incompatible
>> permissive license, so blocks upgrade);
>
> The FTL is GPLv2-incompatible, but according to the FSF, it's GPLv3-
> compatible.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 13:46:32 schrieb Joseph Wakeling:
> It looks like the problems are FreeType (GPLv2 only or GPL-incompatible
> permissive license, so blocks upgrade);
The FTL is GPLv2-incompatible, but according to the FSF, it's GPLv3-
Have had a look through the licenses of dependencies as listed in the
Contributor's Guide.
It looks like the problems are FreeType (GPLv2 only or GPL-incompatible
permissive license, so blocks upgrade); Guile (future versions will be
LGPLv3+, so GPLv2-only-incompatible); and potentially Pango (if
