Question on how to handled "GPL with exceptions" in a package review.

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 4/17/07, Simo Sorce <ssorce at redhat.com> wrote:
> So pigment and elisa don't use _any_ other GPLed code that is not owned
> by themselves (libraries?) ?

For the purposes of the review process... i don't think this question
matters because gstreamer is itself licensed under LGPL so using
closed libraries inside gstreamer plugins as fluendo does is an
acceptable practice allowed by the LGPL.  I think this exceptional
clause is aimed primarily at people who would like to distribute elisa
with additional binary only gstreamer plugins... which Fedora isn't
going to be doing in the official tree.

I also think the fact that the additional exceptional clause is
revocable by any downstream entity makes its okay to allow for the
purposes of the review process. If the exception is found to be
invalid legally then such a ruling only hinders the distributors of
the non-GPL'd fluendo plugins who were relying on that particular
exception clause. Since fedora does not distribute the code which must
rely on the rights of the exceptional clause, the exceptional clause
does not come into play with regard to how elisa and pigment are to be
built, packaged or distributed inside the Fedora repository.

But here again, I'm not a laywer, and while the consensus opinion of
the developers who've had experience with exceptional GPL clause
appear to think this is not a particularly exotic version, I'm still
interested in a competent legal ruling.

-jef