Re: (L)GPLv3

On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 13:17 -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:12 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
> >                                                           IANAL but I'm
> > curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to
> > allow linking with GPLv2 programs.  Perhaps with work, that could be
> > GNOME policy going forward?  I like v3, but I think we need to be able
> > to link to v2 programs.
> As I mentioned it my earlier emails, it's not a term in the LGPLv3 that
> prevents you from linking GPLv2 programs to it.  It's the GPLv2 in the
> program code that states "you can't link this against anything other
> than GPLv2 code".
> Nothing we could add to the library licence (other than dual-licensing
> under GPLv2) could fix this.

Yes, because of the additional restrictions.  And it's my understanding
is that there wasn't an exception added to the v3 license for v2 because
of concern that people would circumvent the v3 restrictions by making
all of their programs v2.  Which makes sense.  But, it seems like when
we're making a choice between dual-licensing v2/3 and v3 with an
exception for v2 only -- the exception is the better choice.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]