Summary: | x11-libs/wxGTK license changed | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo wxWidgets project <wxwidgets> |
Status: | RESOLVED CANTFIX | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/newlicen.htm | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Arne Babenhauserheide
2009-11-16 17:54:10 UTC
wxWinLL-3 is basically (L)GPL-2 with a special exemption that you can distribute binaries (modified or not) under your own terms (point 2). This doesn't apply here since we don't distribute any binaries. I don't think point 4 applies either as all our modifications/patches are GPL-2 which means we fall under point 3, which just says that any GPL-2 code added to the library doesn't qualify for the exception. There's nothing that says making GPL-2 licensed modifications changes the license of the library, just that you can distribute binaries under your own terms. We don't, so we can't. As I understand point point 4, it says that you can choose whether you want the exception to apply to your own code. And since your patches are GPL without exception, the whole work can only be put under the GPL - which automatically strips away the exception for the whole work. So the binaries produced when using GPL/LGPL patches (the "entire product") are automatically LGPL/GPL without exception, as long as the patch author doesn't carry over the exception into his/her contribution. What doesn't change is the license of the code, but the license of the "entire work" has to fit every single part, so adding GPL-2 patches makes the entire work GPL-2. (If I had found license notices in the patches, I'd have written that directly) But what LICENSE reflects is the license of the code as we distribute it, not the binaries that are created through the compilation process, which, i agree, could be considered LGPL or whatever license you choose to distribute them as under the exception. Furthermore, from a non-technical viewpoint, the license of wxWidgets is explicitly designed to allow the possibility of distributing the wx libraries under licenses that are less permissive than the LGPL, so that distributors are not obliged to distribute the source with the binaries. So I don't believe that this holds with what @FSF-APPROVED is supposed to represent. In the end I'd rather accurately and impartially describe the state of the code than strip away upstream's intentions to make it fit in a license group. |