NOTE: Please publicize any license changes to your packages

[Tomas Mraz]

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 16:02 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:49:59PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > GCC/binutils/gdb already are changing. I don't know about others.
> > > > Once glibc will change, you can mark all packages for "review by
> > > > legal".
> > > 
> > > Until the FSF figures out what the hell they're going to do with gplv2
> > > being incompatible with gplv3, we can't allow it in the distribution.
> > 
> > 
> > that's sort of an unfair statement of the situation.
> > gplv3 is not compatible with v2, but for what would it need to be? YOu
> > can have v2 and v3 programs in the same distro just like you can have v2
> > and other licensed programs in the same distro.
> > 
> > It only becomes a problem when you're linking (and for most cases that
> > is fine) or are otherwise a derived work.
> 
> The only problem is lgplv3, I don't see any problems with including
> gplv3 programs in Fedora and including gplv3 gcc or binutils in Fedora
> will be soon a necessity.

And I don't even see the problem with lgplv3 - we just have to ensure
that we don't link any gplv2 only program to such library. Such as we
have to ensure that we don't link any gpl program to openssl library and
so on.
-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb