[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sc-dev] [PATCH] Add cmake option NO_GPL3 to simplify building of GPL2 binaries
2012/12/24 Jakob Leben <jakob.leben@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Dan Stowell <danstowell+sc3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I'll change it to GPL 2. Btw, the original source of that other
>>> person's code in the hacks file is offered under GPL 2 ("or later
>>> version"), so I assume no consent of the original author is needed. Do
>>> you agree on that?
>> I see - yes, sounds fine. (I assume you're doing "GPL 2 or later" for yours)
> Hmm, however, Qt itself is licensed under GPL 3, and LGPL 2.1. I
> wonder whether this is compatible with GPL 2?
> According to GPL compatibility table  LGPL 2.1 is compatible with
> GPL 2, but I don't understand how Qt can be licensed at the same time
> also under GPL 3, and what that means for compatibility...
>  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
A dual license of "GPL3+ or LGPL 2.1" would indeed be curious, because
LGPL 2.1 code can be relicensed as GPL2+ as you suggest, which would
clearly make it fine for GPL2+. So the question is why they don't
already turn their GPL3+ licence into GPL2+. It seems it might be a
historical accident since the LGPL was added to Qt later:
but I don't know. Anyway, seems to be GPL2+ compatible as far as I can
sc-dev mailing list
info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml