[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: License question about regexplorer

* Roberto C. Sanchez:

> I have been recently checking out packages up for adoption or
> already orphaned.  In the process I came across regexplorer [0].
> Here are the dependencies of regexplorer and their respective
> licenses (as I understand it):
> * libc6 (LGPL)
> * libgcc1 (GPL w/ exception)
> * libqt3c102-mt (QPL/GPL)
> * libstdc++5 (GPL)
> * libx11-6 (MIT/X)
> * libxext6 (MIT/X)

And the problem is that regexplorer is licensed under the plain QPL?

> My question is this.  Is Debian accepting QT3 under the GPL or the
> QPL?

As far as I know, Debian complies with the QPL requirements, so we can
choose between QPL and GPL on a per-application basis.

> Specifically:
> (1) is the exception for libgcc1 sufficient for regexplorer to link?

Yes, as long as you use GCC to compile regexplorer.

> (2) is QT3 in Debian via QPL or GPL?

It's dual-licensed.

> (3) is libstdc++5 actually GPL w/o exception?

No, all source files should be covered by the usual exception.  If
they aren't, upstream considers this a bug.

> Additionally, it seems like QPL licensed code can't be in main

QPL is usually considered free, but its use is discouraged.  An
additional exception, as granted by OCaml for example, can improve

Reply to: