On 2013-1-19 13:58 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Jan 18, 2013, at 19:47, Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Do you realise this effectively makes gettext GPL-3 rather than >> LGPL-2.1+, which will negatively impact distributability of its dependents? > > No, I had not realized that. > > You're basing this on the declaration "license GPL-3" in the libunistring > portfile?
Yes. > The file README in the libunistring distribution contains the following > statement: > >> Copyright >> --------- >> >> The libunistring library and its header files are under the GNU LGPL, see >> file COPYING.LIB. This license is based on the GNU GPL, see file COPYING. >> >> The documentation is under another license; see in the documentation. > > Based on this I would say that "license GPL-3" in the libunistring portfile > is wrong and should be changed to LGPL-3 or possibly LGPL-3+, I'm not sure. > (The comments in the source files say GPL 3 or later.) If the comments in the source files say GPL-3+, that's what those files are under, unless the copyright holder has elsewhere given permission to distribute under another license. If the sole copyright holder also wrote the README, I guess that might count, but in any case it's pretty unclear. We really can't just assume we know what they meant. > Would that resolve the situation to your satisfaction, or is your objection > about (L)GPL 3 vs 2.1? If the latter, I can certainly revert the inclusion of > libunistring and instead go the other way and ensure it is not used. LGPL-3(+) isn't as bad, though it still conflicts with GPL-2. -Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
