The license compatibility matrix is useful, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
The problem is for GPLv2-only projects that wants to use a LGPLv3 library. Using LGPLv3+ also has consequences for projects that wants to copy code from GnuTLS (they need to be GPLv3+ or LGPLv3+), but that is not something that happens widely enough to care about as far as I am aware. If anyone knows of significant code re-use from gnutls, let me know. /Simon "David Marín Carreño" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 _______________________________________________ Help-gnutls mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnutls
