Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-13 Thread Marcus D. Hanwell
On Saturday 12 May 2007 20:40:29 Petteri Räty wrote: Kevin F. Quinn kirjoitti: All these exceptions are doing the same thing - relaxing the GPL as it applies to the compiler (or template library in this case), so that it does not apply to works created using it. I like the

[gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Marcus D. Hanwell
There is a template library called Eigen I would like to add to the tree. It is a dependency of an application I would like to add shortly. It will also end up being a dependency of KDE 4 (for kalzium). My question relates to the licence the code is released under. It is licenced under the GNU

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Carsten Lohrke
Err, every single _GPL_licensed_ software needs an OpenSSL exception of course. Carsten signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Carsten Lohrke
No. LICENSE=GPL-2 some-exception suffices. That said, we suck at our licensing information badly. E.g. every single ebuild linking against OpenSSL has (or at least needs to have) a linking exeption. We don't flag this anywhere. More important, what's with optional dependencies!? We don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Petteri Räty
Marcus D. Hanwell kirjoitti: There is a template library called Eigen I would like to add to the tree. It is a dependency of an application I would like to add shortly. It will also end up being a dependency of KDE 4 (for kalzium). My question relates to the licence the code is released

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 02:27:20PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: No. LICENSE=GPL-2 some-exception suffices. No, that means something completely different. It means that you should install the software only if you find both the GPL-2 and the exception acceptable, rather than if you find the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Saturday 12 May 2007, Carsten Lohrke wrote: More important, what's with optional dependencies!? We don't support LICENSE=GPL-2 ssl? ( openssl-exception) yes we do -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Bryan Østergaard
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 02:27:43PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: No. LICENSE=GPL-2 some-exception suffices. That said, we suck at our licensing information badly. E.g. every single ebuild linking against OpenSSL has (or at least needs to have) a linking exeption. We don't flag this anywhere.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Samstag, 12. Mai 2007, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 02:27:20PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: No. LICENSE=GPL-2 some-exception suffices. No, that means something completely different. It means that you should install the software only if you find both the GPL-2 and the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 03:13:02PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Samstag, 12. Mai 2007, Harald van Dijk wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 02:27:20PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: No. LICENSE=GPL-2 some-exception suffices. No, that means something completely different. It means that you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Carsten Lohrke
On Samstag, 12. Mai 2007, Harald van Dijk wrote: Do you need to accept the unmodified GPL-2 for software licensed under the GPL-2 plus exception? No? Then GPL-2 does not belong in LICENSE, unless in a || group. Of course you accept the GPL plus the added exception. Just because an exception

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Marcus D. Hanwell
On Saturday 12 May 2007 15:22:15 Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Samstag, 12. Mai 2007, Harald van Dijk wrote: Do you need to accept the unmodified GPL-2 for software licensed under the GPL-2 plus exception? No? Then GPL-2 does not belong in LICENSE, unless in a || group. Of course you accept the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Harald van Dijk
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 04:21:52PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote: On Samstag, 12. Mai 2007, Harald van Dijk wrote: Do you need to accept the unmodified GPL-2 for software licensed under the GPL-2 plus exception? No? Then GPL-2 does not belong in LICENSE, unless in a || group. Of course you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Kevin F. Quinn
On Sat, 12 May 2007 12:41:58 +0100 Marcus D. Hanwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a template library called Eigen I would like to add to the tree. It is a dependency of an application I would like to add shortly. It will also end up being a dependency of KDE 4 (for kalzium). My question

Re: [gentoo-dev] Eigen and GPL-2 exception - is a new licence required?

2007-05-12 Thread Petteri Räty
Kevin F. Quinn kirjoitti: All these exceptions are doing the same thing - relaxing the GPL as it applies to the compiler (or template library in this case), so that it does not apply to works created using it. I like the GPL-2-with-linking-exception license name that the gnu-classpath