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? Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann <mathias hasselmann gmx de> Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/ Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil