On 11/27/2012 10:08 AM, Debarshi Ray wrote: >> OK, so there are some proprietary or otherwise encumbered plugins that might >> not be GPLv3-compatible but might be compatible with GPLv2. > > You again missed the "GPLv2 with exceptions" part. > >>> Plus, this practice of either using LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions for >>> applications is so widespread in GStreamer land (Totem, PiTiVi, Rhythmbox, >>> Transmageddon, etc.) that I was not comfortable with having a situation >>> where the application silently ends up under a different license due to >>> another library. >> >> I don't think that's a problem because the whole purpose of the "or any >> later version of the GPL, at your choice" is to allow the GPL to be updated. > > You don't think that it is a problem that our downstreams might inadvertently > end up violating the GPL by shipping GPLv3 code that links to non-free > software? I am not saying they are, but the chances are too high for me to > take this lightly.
Again, if they are doing this then they are already violating the GPL by shipping GPLv2 code that links to non-free software. The v2 versus v3 thing is a red herring. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
