GPL v2+, GPL v2, GPL v3, LGPL v2, LGPL v2+ ?

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:46, Cyrille Berger wrote:
> I forgot, you are aware that with GPLv3, krita is illegal in the US ? I
> can't count the number of patents we are violating.

That's simply nonsense. First, GPLv2+ is not GPLv3 -- we release under GPLv2+, 
and others making use of our code can choose which under which version of the 
GPL to do so. Second, the issue is not what you would prefer or what I would 
prefer, but what is legally possible. None of us are experts, so we should 
avoid unclear situations. Mixing GPL and LGPL files in the same binary object 
would create an unclear situation, that should be avoided. Thirdly, what the 
GPLv3 _says_ is that people redistributing the application who apply for a 
patent that would render the application unfree lose their license to 
redistribute. It would be nonsensical for the FSF to create a license that 
would make distributing applications that violate any patent illegal. It 
would be completely opposite to their whole ethos. The goal is to make 
patents illegal, or at least, make it impossible for anyone to abuse patents 
to hinder free software with impunity.

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt 
http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20060906/6fba8df3/attachment.pgp