>From Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller on Friday, 09 July, 2010: >On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 16:53 +0200, Maciej Piechotka wrote: >> On 09/07/10 16:37, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: >> > I would strongly prefer glib to not change its license, we are keeping >> > the lgplv2.1 in GStreamer, partly because a lot of people making >> > products with GStreamer prefer it over lgplv3. If glib switched under us >> > it would make our license stability a bit of a joke. If someone wants to >> > use glib under the lgpl3 they can do so now with the current license, if >> > upstream changes however, people can not keep using it under the >> > lgplv2.1 without forking. >> Not quite true. You can link LGPL 2.1 project with LGPL 3.0 library >> according to FSF. >> IANAL but LGPL is not viral license and you can link anything with it. >That is true, however it still adds LGPLv3 to the licensing stack people >have to relate to and deal with. So while the license isn't viral it >still means people have to use a LGPLv3 licensed library in order to use >GStreamer.
What specifically are their objections, particularly since the LGPLv3 doesn't have the linking stuff that is generally at the root of common objections? -Joseph -- Joseph [email protected] _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
