Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: [Theme Editor] Weekly Status Report #7
Re: [Theme Editor] Weekly Status Report #7
From: RafaŽl Carrť <rafael.carre_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 14:58:13 +0200
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:28:55 +0200
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†RafaŽl†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?)
The issue has been brought from times to times but only on IRC I think
> 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 understand this:
- If we want to *link* to a LGPLv3 library, no problem (as even
proprietary code can link to LGPLv3)
- If we want to *copy* LGPLv3 code and statically link it in a
binary made with our "GPLv2 or later" code, we must "upgrade to
But "upgrade to GPLv3" means upgrade the binary to GPLv3, and then we
have to redistribute the source as GPLv3; which is not a problem.
For example I am allowed to redistribute the file apps/metadata.c
"under the terms of the GPL either version 2 or later".
I can choose to redistribute under the version 3 then and change the
license header, then redistribute that file to a third party.
If that third party doesn't like GPLv3 and wants to get the content as
GPLv2, he can choose to download it from the repository which still
says "GPLv2 or later", and choose the GPLv2 terms.
> 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.
With my understanding our source is already GPLv3 (well it can be that
way every time someone redistributes the source code to someone else).
On the other hand, I have no idea which restrictions apply when we
redistribute a GPLv3 binary.
-- RafaŽl CarrťReceived on 2010-07-04