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

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Wednesday 06 September 2006 11:37, Cyrille Berger wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:57, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > That's sad, that would effectively prevents me to be willing to work on
> > > krita/image and krita/ui.
> >
> > I seriously doubt you can have two licenses in the source that produce a
> > single binary -- but then, I'm not a lawyer.
>
> then countless of opensource project are breaking the law.... as long as
> the licence are compatible you can mix them. Of course, in the case of
> mixing LGPL and GPL, that would mean that in krita binary, my source code
> is degraded into GPLv2.
>
> And while, I was more or less happy with GPLv2 (and even v2+ until v3
> happens), while yes we can keep it that way. Once krita link to something
> which is v3, it means all code degrade to v3 as well until the dependency
> is removed. Whereas with LGPLv2 the code remains under the term you wanted
> it to be.

That would be librararies outside Krita, right? Because I don't propose to 
accept GPLv3 only files in krita/image krita/ui either. And if there's a 
GPLv3 library that we really like to use, well, we can discuss that then and 
there.

-- 
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/20060907/97135835/attachment.pgp