On Thursday 23 August 2007 13:32, Heikki Johannes Junes wrote: > I have found 4 lisence conflict in Rosegarden, see the project summary in > ohloh: > > http://www.ohloh.net/projects/538/analyses/latest > > There is 1 artistic license and 3 LGPL lisences. > > What are these files ? Should they be GPL'd ?
I've wondered about this too, but I think the warnings are all spurious. The Artistic License file is ins2rgd.pl, which is arguably a separate program. The Artistic License is IIRC not GPL-compatible, but that shouldn't ever matter for a separate program whether it was distributed together with RG or not (c.f. GPL's "mere aggregation" clause and any understanding about derived works in copyright). Of the files that refer to the LGPL, all but one are in the po/gettext-0.10.35-kde source tree. This also a separate program, and the program as a whole is under the GPL anyway -- it just draws some LGPL'd code from glibc. The remaining one is src/gui/kdeext/RGLed.cpp, which is a modified version of a KDE LGPL'd file. In any case, there is no problem with incorporating LGPL code into a GPL program (and Ohloh doesn't report the LGPL files as a license conflict, it just notes them in the license list). The only reason I can think of to change the license for any of these would be to make Ohloh shut up about it. I don't think that's a very compelling reason. Of course we'd need permission from Scott Doty to change the ins2rgd.pl license. Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
