-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am Sonntag, 20. September 2009 10:11:54 schrieb Graham Percival: > > No, because LGPL has additional restrictions. The problem is not that we > > would be violating guile's license, but lilypond's license does not allow > > linking to a LGPLv3 library. So basically, you are telling all package > > maintainers of all distributions to violate the copyright of all lilypond > > contributors. > > No, I am not telling them to do that. I am saying that, if guile > 2.0 comes out and we have not switched, they should link to > guile-1.8 if they want to legally distribute lilypond.
Okay, and what do you think will happen in reality? I don't think distributions will be willing to spend time and resources on providing outdated software/libraries, simply because lilypond wants old versions. I'd rather say lilypond will be dropped instead, citing licensing issues with lilypond. > Perhaps there is a problem of language here -- the word "must" is > very strong in English. For example, "if x is greater than 5, > then it must be greater than 4". "must" means that there is no > possibility of an alternate option. What I didn't write down, but implicitly assumed was the half-sentence "if we/they want to use the current, installed library versions". Then it is a MUST. > I'd also like more details about the GPLv2 linking to LGPLv3 > library issue. [...] > > It is our own restrictive license, where the lilypond developers have > > practically been saying (by licensing as GPLv2only) that they don't want > > lilypond to link to any (L)GPLv3 libraries. > > Nobody has said that they "don't want" lilypond to link to LGPLv3. > If there is a solid legal reason why GPLv2 cannot link to a LGPLv3 > license, please state it clearly. See: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility > I am not arguing that there *isn't* such a solid legal reason; I > have not spent an hour reading those licenses recently. But at > the same time, I am not aware of any such reason. The LGPLv3 also includes the patents clause and the anti-DRM clause, which both add additional restrictions, which the GPLv2 does not have. On the other hand, all lilypond contributors -- by putting their code under GPLv2only -- explicitly say that they do not agree to any additional restrictions. Thus lilypond can't link to any (L)GPLv3 library, which would add additional restrictions. > > > > But then we have a problem with freetype, which > > > > is FTL (BSD with advertising clause, thus incompatible with GPL) or > > > > GPLv2 only... > > > > > > I don't think there's any problem with linking to a BSD library. > > > > It's BSD WITH advertising clause (three-clause version!), which is not > > compatible with GPL. It is not the two-clause version, which is > > compatible with the GPL. > > I think you mean "four-clause version", but agreed. Of course. OTOH, the FTL is not the BSD, as my mail might suggest (sorry for the confusion). It is rather a completely different license containing some attribution clause, making it incompatible with GPLv2 (for the same reasons as the 4-clause BSD lisense). But apparently it is compatible with GPLv3, so we don't have any problems with FT, should we switch to GPLv3. Cheers, Reinhold - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKthNXTqjEwhXvPN0RAlA7AJ4utIuEPYxPKZpiSB0E5a1UOpgJaQCgia3a n6IcEl3i2R096PIfM3SQOBo= =9/rh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
