Re: license compatibility
What is the work we are discussing? Can we see the full source online somewhere (to see its entire license grant)? http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/wordplay/wordplay_7.22.orig.tar.gz Sincerely, Moshe Piekarski -- There's no such thing as a stupid question, But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots.
Re: license compatibility
Moshe Piekarski writes: > Can I re-release code written under this license as gpl-2? What is the work we are discussing? Can we see the full source online somewhere (to see its entire license grant)? -- \ “Of all classes the rich are the most noticed and the least | `\ studied.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, _The Age of Uncertainty_, | _o__) 1977 | Ben Finney
Re: License compatibility with GPLv3
Hi Miriam, On 2008-01-24 13:49 +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: I have some small problem with Gnash that might be extensible to other packages, so I'm asking here to find out if anyone else has had that problem too and how did they manage it. Gnash is GNU's free Flash player. It is now licensed under GPLv3 (it was previously GPLv2 or above). It has a really huge list of build dependencies: dpkg-dev (= 1.13.19), debhelper (= 4.0.0), quilt, autoconf, dh-buildinfo, automake1.9 | automake, libtool, libltdl3-dev, help2man, libxmu-dev, dejagnu, autotools-dev, libboost-dev, libboost-thread-dev, libxml2-dev, libjpeg-dev, libpng12-dev | libpng-dev, libagg-dev, libgstreamer0.10-dev, libkonq4-dev, libpango1.0-dev | pango-devel, libgtkglext1-dev, libmad0-dev, libdirectfb-dev, libcurl4-gnutls-dev | libcurl3-gnutls-dev | libcurl4-openssl-dev | libcurl3-openssl-dev, libcaca-dev, libboost-date-time-dev, libavcodec-dev, libavformat-dev, libming-dev, libming-util, mtasc, libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-dev, libboost-serialization-dev, python, base-files (= 4.0.1) All these dependencies already have their own list of dependencies too, right now I'm concerned about libkonq4-dev and Qt being GPLv2 only. Even though all of these packages might be GPLv3 compatible, it is not guaranteed that their dependencies are, like: Package A (GPLv3) depends on package B (GPLv2 or above) Package B (GPLv2 or above) depends on package C (GPLv2 only) Both dependencies would be OK on their own, but I'd be effectively linking A (GPLv3) with C (GPLv2 only) which are not compatible. You will be interested that Trolltech has released Qt 3.3.8 under GPL 3: http://trolltech.com/company/newsroom/announcements/press.2008-01-18.5377846280/pressrelease_view Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License compatibility with GPLv3
2008/1/24, Sven Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Miriam, You will be interested that Trolltech has released Qt 3.3.8 under GPL 3: Thanks, it really solves a great part of the problem, but I have no idea on how to check that there are no other GPLv2 only libraries directly or indirectly linked, apart from spending hours checking manually. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License compatibility with GPLv3
Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have no idea on how to check that there are no other GPLv2 only libraries directly or indirectly linked, apart from spending hours checking manually. This seems like an ideal case to promote the proposed format URL:http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat for machine-parseable 'debian/copyright' files. In the absence of that, it does seem the only way to know is to manually parse the 'debian/copyright' files until you've investigated all dependencies that would count as derived work. -- \ If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of | `\ danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, | _o__)Mr. Brave man, I guess I'm a coward. -- Jack Handey | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
