hello, On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:22:39PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Have you tried to persuade libcgal copyright holder(s) to re-license > libcgal under the GNU GPL v2 or later, or under the GNU LGPL v2.1, or, > at least, to dual-license it under the QPL and one GPLv2-compatible > license? i've checked the licensing situation and there have alreay been approaches to convince them. the problem is, cgal is composed of different modules by many different people, some of which are already dfsg free, but others insist on sticking to qpl. asking them one at a time with a particular problem at hand (like i try here) is probably the best i can do. > > As a special exception, you have permission to link this program > > with the CGAL library and distribute executables, as long as you > > follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the > > software in the executable aside from CGAL. > > This CGAL-linking exception seems to be a bit incomplete. > Shouldn't there be also the permission to drop the exception? > Please see the phrasing recommended by the FSF for the GPL v2 + linking > exception: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs the wording follows exactly the wording recommended for a qpl exception by the fsf[1]. the note on dropping it seems to be a good idea in case some new library needs an exception, thanks for your input chrysn [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#QPL -- To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers. -- Bene Gesserit axiom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature