Re: Move to LGPL3

Am Sonntag, den 16.03.2008, 07:49 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort:
> Le samedi 15 mars 2008 à 21:43 +0100, Christian Persch a écrit :
> > Hi Jean;
> > 
> > Am Samstag, den 15.03.2008, 21:09 +0100 schrieb Jean Bréfort:
> > > Hmm, and what will happen to applications using at least one GPLv2-only
> > > libraries?
> > 
> > This might indeed pose a problem, though I'm not sure how major it is. I
> > have to admit that it is however not a theoretical problem, since we
> > just found out that we do depend on one such library in Gnome: evince
> > uses libpoppler which is a fork of Xpdf, and it is GPL version 2 only.
> > 
> Other affected projects are Goffice (GPL-v2 only) and all those which
> depend on it, namely Gnumeric, Abiword, Gnucash and GChemUtils (the last
> also use OpenBabel, another GPL-v2 only library). Seems that all the
> projects I'm involved in would be affected. Some can be relicensed, but
> probably not all, just because some previous contributors seem to have
> disappeared from the earth surface.

I am really wondering what's the reason for FSF claiming, that programs
licenced GPL-2 only are not allowed to use LGPL-3 libraries. The LGPL-3
allows non-free, proprietary programs to use LGPL-3 libraries, but
excludes free software, licensed GPL-2 only? This sounds absurd to me!

Is the FSF spreading FUD with their license matrix? Why doesn't the
matrix have footnotes explaining that absurd conflict?

Mathias Hasselmann <mathias hasselmann gmx de>
Openismus GmbH:
Personal Site:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

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