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

Re: Licensing change: binutils GPLv2 -> GPLv3

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 19:45 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

Upstream binutils switched to GPLv3+ already more than a month ago.
While I guess I can delay switch to binutils- 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?



GPLv2 with exception
This is almost certainly a problem. Looks to be linking against

Has anyone tried contacting upstream? I've contacted upstream for all my GPLv2 (only) packages and sofar all who have replied have promised me that the next version will be either GPLv2+ or "GPLv2 and GPLv3" (luckily they were all pretty much one man projects, so upstream has the power to do this). One upstream has even done a new release with just the copyrightheaders changed esp. for this. Sometimes it takes some explaining why GPLv2 only is going to be a problem once glibc hits LGPLv3, but usually upstreams are very willing to help in my experience.

The only problematic packages I currently have are goffice and gnumeric (gnome really should have kept a better watch there GRRR).



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