On 2017-01-29 10:08, Andy Simpkins wrote:
On 29/01/17 13:18, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Andy Simpkins wrote:
It is our belief that this is sufficient; that the package FontForge,
and type 1 fonts generated by this package are now DFSG compliant
because Apache 2.0 is GPL2+ compatible.
The FSF believes that Apache 2.0 is only compatible with GPLv3+ not
GPLv2.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I agree with the FSF. But it is also technically
correct to say that it's compatible with GPLv2+, because you can take
GPLv2+ works under GPLv3.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
There have been fascinating discussions about this somewhat recently, as
LLVM had an exception drafted to Apache 2.0 by Heather Meeker to deal
with the incompatibility.
Well Paul you are entirely correct.
Would you believe that pretty much everyone here missed that one -
despite the fact that nearly every person did proof this :-)
OK so what does that mean?
GPL2 stuff could be problematic but ultimately the suggested action(s)
would still appear valid... Karen your thoughts on this would be
greatly appreciated
I'd be happy to discuss more in a nonpublic venue and get more
information about the situation. Unfortunately, I'm headed out to Campus
Party Brasil today, and headed straight to Brussels for FOSDEM from
there, and won't free up until after February 7.
karen
