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

Re: need help with openscad's license

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 00:17:39 +0100 chrysn wrote:

> 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.

I think the best thing you could do is really trying to persuade CGAL
copyright holders to re-license or dual-license under GPLv2-compatible
This strategy, if successful, would eliminate any necessity to add
linking exceptions to other GPL-licensed works that link with CGAL, and
a lot of people would be much happier. 

> > >  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].

This is awkward, I hadn't noticed that recommendation.
It looks like the FSF is giving inconsistent advice on different
FAQs...  :-/

Maybe someone should point out this inconsistency to the FSF, so that
it may be fixed.

> the note on dropping it seems to be a good idea in case
> some new library needs an exception,

I would say that it is useful in case the linking exception becomes
unneeded in the future, and, above all, it is important to let the
GPL + linking exception combination stay GPL-compatible...
> thanks for your input

You're welcome!

> chrysn
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#QPL

 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpqedkdbcqnq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: