On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Benjamin Eltzner <b.eltz...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Aron, > >> qpdfview needs libpoppler, which is licensed under GPL-2 only, but >> qpdfview is GPL-3. The two license are not compatible. Would it be >> possible to ask upstream to re-license the software and release a new >> version? > > This is indeed a serious issue. I spoke with the upstream author (Adam > Reichold) and he is willing to make things work (on the downside, > double-licensing might require throwing out some translations). > > However, he pointed me to the fact that the new libpoppler version 0.20 will > be based on xpdf-3.03, which in turn is licensed under GPL-2 and GPL-3, > allowing also libpoppler to be licensed as GPL-2 and GPL-3. This should make > the problem go away in the very near future (as soon as libpoppler-0.20 is > packaged), therefore Adam asked me to inquire, whether it would be easier to > just wait for the new libpoppler version. > > What would you suggest? >
Then it will be up to your choice. Let me list the benefits and downsides: Option A: Wait for libpoppler 0.20 Pros: 1.All improvements of GPLv3 comparing with GPLv2 (if you agree they are improvements). For example your work will not be used in devices that require DRM to update the software inside. An example to explain it is something like Kindle, which only an Amazon signed package can be used to update the software inside, even though the Linux kernel and various tools are open source under the terms of GPLv2, users cannot build and flash their own version into the device. With GPLv3, this is not allowed (called "tivoization"). This is also true for some Android devices that locks their bootloader and don't allow users to flash their system. 2.Don't need to ask other contributors to relicense their work, i.e. translations. Cons: 1.Cannot make the software into Wheezy. Option B: Release with dual license or more Pros: 1.If you are quick enough, there is possibility to make the software into Wheezy. 2.Your software can be probably more widely used (as in those DRM enabled device mentioned above). Cons: 1.Need to ask contributors re-license their work, or drop them. 2.You cannot revoke the dual-licensed releases so that if there are evil organization want to use your technology in DRM enabled device then they can base on a GPLv2 version and develop its own. -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAMr=8w434ypq4pgke3vy3jk5b5hr4d1e3ela4qwh9ufeijy...@mail.gmail.com
