Licensing change: binutils GPLv2 -> GPLv3

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 19:45 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Upstream binutils switched to GPLv3+ already more than a month ago.
> While I guess I can delay switch to binutils-2.17.50.0.18 for a few
> days, I can't do that forever.
> 
> Under GPLv3+ will be licensed both the programs (I don't imagine
> how that could be a problem) but also libfd and libopcodes.
> Checking current rawhide, following packages BuildRequire
> binutils-devel and therefore very likely link against libbfd
> or libopcodes.  Can the maintainers check if their licensing
> isn't incompatible with GPLv3+ licensed libbfd.a resp. libopcodes.a?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> alleyoop

GPLv2+ (no problem, although, the spec License tag is WRONG!)

> frysk

GPLv2 with exception 

This is almost certainly a problem. Looks to be linking against
libopcodes.a.

(also, the spec License tag is WRONG!)

> gcl

GPL+ and LGPLv2+ (no problem, but again, the spec License tag is WRONG!)

> kdesdk

GPLv2+ with exception (i'm sounding like a broken record here, but no
problem, except for the spec license tag being WRONG!)

> lush

GPLv2+ (once more, no problem, spec License tag is WRONG!)

> oprofile

GPLv2+ (no problem, spec License tag is WRONG!)

> pfmon

GPLv2+ (no problem, spec License tag is WRONG!)

> sblim-wbemcli

CPL. Well, if we were linking to this, it might be a problem (CPL is GPL
incompatible), but its only using some very basic header information
from binutils-devel, and no linking to it, so its fine.

> sysprof

GPLv2+ (no problem, spec License tag is WRONG!)

*sigh* Only one of these packages had a valid License tag in the spec
file.

~spot