On 14:50 Thu 01 Sep , Simo Sorce wrote:
> 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.
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.
> Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
> devel mailing list
Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and IcedTea
PGP Key: F5862A37 (https://keys.indymedia.org/)
Fingerprint = EA30 D855 D50F 90CD F54D 0698 0713 C3ED F586 2A37
devel mailing list