[Help-gnutls] Re: Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?

[David Marín Carreño]

But I don't catch what is the problem: a proprietary licensed product
can be dinamically linked to a LGPL3 library. And, as far as I know
(and, please, correct me if I am wrong, as I am not a lawyer), a GPL2
product can still be dinamically (or even statically) linked with a
LGPL3 library.

We are not talking about GPLv3. It's LGPLv3.

Perhaps, the problem would be the GPL'd parts of gnutls...


-- 
David Marín Carreño


2008/9/9 Joe Orton <joe at manyfish.co.uk>:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 01:46:17PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On Tue 2008-09-09 12:01:23 -0400, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
>> > I tried to do some systematic searches, but the debian copyright
>> > information tends to be incorrect (not mentioning versions) or difficult
>> > to parse.
>>
>> This is sadly true.  Automatic resolution of this sort of question
>> would be much easier if the machine-readable debian/copyright proposal
>> was more widely-adopted:
>>
>>  http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat
>
> We have such a standard agreed at Fedora but the hard work is really in
> auditing N thousand packages to meet it.
>
>> > I recognize cups, snort and ekg, and they are fairly well known.
>>
>> fwiw, gobby seems to be GPL-2+, not GPL-2, at least according to the
>> debian copyright info, so it's possilbe that the fedora tags are wrong
>> on that package:
>
> I agree, good catch, thanks; I've filed a bug to get this fixed in
> Fedora.
>
>> And cups appears to be ambiguous as far as the GPL'ed bits (though the
>> LGPL'ed bits are pretty clearly V2-only):
>>
>> [0 dkg at squeak ~]$ grep -A6 ^INTRODUCTION /usr/share/doc/cups-common/copyright
>> INTRODUCTION
>>
>> The Common UNIX Printing System(tm), ("CUPS(tm)"), is provided
>> under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") and GNU Library
>> General Public License ("LGPL"), Version 2, with exceptions for
>> Apple operating systems and the OpenSSL toolkit. A copy of the
>> exceptions and licenses follow this introduction.
>
> Following the guidance at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ I
> would say that since the code is explicit about being licensed per the
> terms in LICENSE.txt, "GPLv2 only" is a reasonable interpretation.
>
> If anybody thinks this is important to clarify I can chase it with the
> Fedora licensing guys.
>
> Regards, Joe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnutls-devel mailing list
> Gnutls-devel at gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel
>