Re: Move to LGPL3

["Brian J. Tarricone" <bjt23 cornell edu>]

Lieven van der Heide wrote:
> Ok, according to the matrix on
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
>
> it's indeed not allowed, although I don't really understand why.

Mathias pointed out exactly why.  It's not that linking GPLv2-only to 
LGPLv3 violates the LGPLv3 license of the library.  Linking a GPLv2-only 
app to a LGPLv3 library actually violates the app's its own license. 
The GPL in general doesn't allow linking to libraries with more 
restrictive licenses[1], and the LGPLv3 is more restrictive than GPLv2-only.

	-brian

[1] The exception being for supposed "platform" libraries; e.g., you can 
link to Microsoft's C runtime even though it's closed source because 
it's a standard interface that can be considered part of the OS.  I 
believe Sven quoted the exact bit from the GPL in another post.


> On 3/18/08, Lieven van der Heide <lievenvanderheide gmail com> wrote:
> > Does that really apply for the code you link to? Afaik, if a GPL
> >  program uses an LGPL library, it doesn't relicense that library under
> >  GPL too, it merely links to it, and leaves it up to the user to make
> >  sure the library is available. If this would be the case, than it
> >  wouldn't be possible for GPL code to use something like the Windows
> >  API or DirectX either.
> >
> >  I think the restriction from the link you posted only apply to GPL
> >  libraries, but not LGPL.
> >
> >
> >  On 3/17/08, Mathias Hasselmann <mathias hasselmann gmx de> wrote:
> >  >
> >  >  Am Montag, den 17.03.2008, 00:31 +0100 schrieb Mathias Hasselmann:
> >  >
> >  > > 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?
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Ok, it is not FUD. It seems the problem is, that LGPLv3 imposes
> >  >  additional restrictions not found in the GPLv2. So it isn't the LGPLv3
> >  >  that forbids LGPLv3 libraries to be used by GPLv2-only programs. It is
> >  >  the GPLv2 which forbids to linking against libraries more restrictive
> >  >  than itself.
> >  >
> >  >  See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
> >  >  for details.
> >  >
> >  >  In theory LGPLv3 allows addition of exceptions, but they have to be
> >  >  approved by all copyright holders. Doubt this will happen. So only
> >  >  chance for upgrading to a new version of the LGPL is waiting for an FSF
> >  >  approved version of the LGPL, which drops those additional restrictions
> >  >  for GPLv2-only programs.
> >  >
> >  >  Total insanity...
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >  Ciao,
> >  >  Mathias
> >  >  --
> >  >  Mathias Hasselmann <mathias hasselmann gmx de>
> >  >  Openismus GmbH: http://www.openismus.com/
> >  >  Personal Site: http://taschenorakel.de/
> >  >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >  >  gtk-devel-list mailing list
> >  >  gtk-devel-list gnome org
> >  >  http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list