FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-01-2011, 06:50 PM
Simo Sorce
 
Default GIMP vs. poppler licensing, was: So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving
> the stove on.
>
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Here's the gist (in no particular order):
>
> - GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+" (executables,
> libraries)
> - This makes it incompatible with poppler's license (GPLv2 only,
> inherited from xpdf at the time). The xpdf license has since been
> amended to "GPLv2 or GPLv3" in version 3.03 and poppler will follow suit
> in version 0.20. In the meantime, I'll build GIMP without poppler,
> falling back to using the postscript plugin for importing PDF files. As
> soon as poppler packages with the new license are available, I'll revert
> to using it again. In this case the GIMP will have a file-pdf plugin
> again which will be licensed as "GPLv2 or GPLv3" (as it's an exe of its
> own).
>
> Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?

if you combine them in a single package then I guess you'll have to drop
the '+' from the license, as the non '+' components prevents it.

IANAL of course.

Simo.

--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-01-2011, 09:01 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default GIMP vs. poppler licensing, was: So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 21:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:

> > > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> > > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> > > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
> >
> > if you combine them in a single package then I guess you'll have to drop
> > the '+' from the license, as the non '+' components prevents it.
> >
> > IANAL of course.
> >
>
> IANAL either, but as I read this, the logic being suggested is to list all
> applicable licenses, not one license for the combined whole (which would
> have to be GPLv3 for executables and LGPLv3 for libraries).
>
> FWIW, a separate package would make the situation clearer.

Also NAL, but I believe Dr. Hughes is right - it does depend on how
'separable' the binary elements of the resulting package are. Say some
of the code is GPLv2 and some is GPLv2+, and they build into two
separately-executable programs which happen to be in the same package,
then 'GPLv2 and GPLv2+' would be an appropriate license tag. But if some
code was GPLv2 and some was GPLv2+, and both bits of code built into a
single binary, the effective license would be GPLv2, because the license
tag on the RPM refers to the compiled code, and there's no way you can
access the GPLv2+ bit separately from the GPLv2 bit.

As I read this specific situation, since you can execute the file-pdf
plugin independently of GIMP, if you were to keep them in a single
package, then the "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" tag would be
appropriate. As everyone else said, a subpackage would probably make
things clearer, but I don't think either is legally 'more valid' or
'safer'. It's worth remembering the License: field in the RPM is
*informational* in nature, it has no particular legal force or
relevance. If you write incorrect information in there it doesn't really
result in any legal issues, it's just...an error that should be
corrected.

But we should probably just wait for Spot to weigh in. =)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-05-2011, 07:37 AM
Nils Philippsen
 
Default GIMP vs. poppler licensing, was: So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 23:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
>
> Not an actual answer to your question, but wouldn't the license of the PDF
> plugin be GPLv3 only rather than (GPLv2 or GPLv3), considering that GIMP is
> GPLv3+?

Yes, indeed it would.

Thanks,
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nils@redhat.com nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:56 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org