Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: [Theme Editor] Weekly Status Report #7
Re: [Theme Editor] Weekly Status Report #7
From: Dominik Riebeling <dominik.riebeling_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 20:03:53 +0200
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Rafaël Carré <rafael.carre_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
Not exactly, I've brought this issue up on this very list just a week
> - If we want to *link* to a LGPLv3 library, no problem (as even
> proprietary code can link to LGPLv3)
Linking with proprietary code: only if it's not linked statically as
linking statically would create a derived work (again, from my
understanding, and based on the LGPLv2 license; haven't checked if
there are differences in 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.
Doesn't that mean we would need to license the sources as GPLv3 as
well? If we could continue to license the sources as GPLv2+ what would
be the point of the "OK if you upgrade and convert to GPLv3"? Isn't
the intent of the GPLv3 to be a one-way conversion route? It sounds
really weird to me to distribute the sources under a different license
than the binary. Also, where do you read that this upgrading only
applies to the binary (as Mike said)? I understand the GPL being a
source license, so I don't see why this should only apply to the
binary. However, if we need to upgrade source licenses we start having
GPLv3 sources in our code. I'm not sure if we really want to have this
(especially thinking about possible reusing code in other tools later.
I found that GPL vs BSD thing annoying enough when doing work on
> I can choose to redistribute under the version 3 then and change the
> license header, then redistribute that file to a third party.
So that would basically mean that (if we could keep our code GPLv2+)
we would need to upgrade all license headers to GPLv3 before
distributing the source?
> With my understanding our source is already GPLv3 (well it can be that
> way every time someone redistributes the source code to someone else).
No, it's GPLv2+. You can *take* the code and *convert* it to GPLv3.
While this seems like a minor thing I think this is the important part
as it's a different license. If we were GPLv3 we wouldn't have an
issue here at all (but would need to upgrade any 3rd party code to
GPLv3 / LGPLv3 that we include, given that the code allows upgrading)
Received on 2010-07-04