From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 16:37:03 +1000

On 4 July 2010 16:28, Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Mike Giacomelli <giac2000_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>> As Rafaël says we're a GPLv2+ project, so you can link LGPLv3 code against
>> rockbox.  The resulting binary is GPLv3.  Unless you are also including
>> additional GPLv2 only code in the editor, I don't see any reason to prefer
>> any particular GPL version for your project.
>
> I've already wrote about that issue to the corresponding commit (why
> didn't you guys chime in back then?) and from my understanding it's
> not just the binary. As far as I understand the FAQ (I've checked
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility which seems
> to be the same table) using LGPLv3 code means that we would also need
> to convert the *source* code to GPLv3, something I'm not sure if we
> really want to do. I am not a lawyer, so can someone clarify this for
> me? The "OK if you upgrade and convert to GPLv3" pretty much reads to
> me that you need to change the source code license so the Theme Editor
> had to be GPLv3 if it used LGPLv3 code.
>
>
>  - Dominik
>
The editor and rockbox share the new skin parser lib which we probably
 dont want to relicense to v3.
Received on 2010-07-04