But I don't catch what is the problem: a proprietary licensed product can be dinamically linked to a LGPL3 library. And, as far as I know (and, please, correct me if I am wrong, as I am not a lawyer), a GPL2 product can still be dinamically (or even statically) linked with a LGPL3 library.
We are not talking about GPLv3. It's LGPLv3. Perhaps, the problem would be the GPL'd parts of gnutls... -- David Marín Carreño 2008/9/9 Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 01:46:17PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> On Tue 2008-09-09 12:01:23 -0400, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> >> > I tried to do some systematic searches, but the debian copyright >> > information tends to be incorrect (not mentioning versions) or difficult >> > to parse. >> >> This is sadly true. Automatic resolution of this sort of question >> would be much easier if the machine-readable debian/copyright proposal >> was more widely-adopted: >> >> http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat > > We have such a standard agreed at Fedora but the hard work is really in > auditing N thousand packages to meet it. > >> > I recognize cups, snort and ekg, and they are fairly well known. >> >> fwiw, gobby seems to be GPL-2+, not GPL-2, at least according to the >> debian copyright info, so it's possilbe that the fedora tags are wrong >> on that package: > > I agree, good catch, thanks; I've filed a bug to get this fixed in > Fedora. > >> And cups appears to be ambiguous as far as the GPL'ed bits (though the >> LGPL'ed bits are pretty clearly V2-only): >> >> [0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ grep -A6 ^INTRODUCTION >> /usr/share/doc/cups-common/copyright >> INTRODUCTION >> >> The Common UNIX Printing System(tm), ("CUPS(tm)"), is provided >> under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library >> General Public License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with exceptions for >> Apple operating systems and the OpenSSL toolkit. A copy of the >> exceptions and licenses follow this introduction. > > Following the guidance at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ I > would say that since the code is explicit about being licensed per the > terms in LICENSE.txt, "GPLv2 only" is a reasonable interpretation. > > If anybody thinks this is important to clarify I can chase it with the > Fedora licensing guys. > > Regards, Joe > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnutls-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel >
_______________________________________________ Help-gnutls mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnutls
