gphoto2 license
Locked
 
|
Hello,
I almost integrated your library to Buildroot (a board support package generator for embedded software) and I was wondering about licencing. By the fact that it includes some GPLv2+ (as exif.c for instance), could you confirm that the library is GPLv2+ and GPLv2? Here is what is stated in fedora package : # GPLV2+ for the main lib (due to exif.c) and most plugins, some plugins GPLv2 License: GPLv2+ and GPLv2 http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/ Thanking your for your consideration. Best regards, Kevin JOLY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Gphoto-user mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gphoto-user |
|
|
Hi,
The library is LGPLv2.1+ (note the L) It was developed in a time where licensing was not strictly observed, so some files with GPLv2 are mixed in, but the intent is LGPLv2.1+ Ciao, Marcus On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:20:18AM +0200, Kévin Joly wrote: > Hello, > > I almost integrated your library to Buildroot (a board support package > generator for embedded software) and I was wondering about licencing. > By the fact that it includes some GPLv2+ (as exif.c for instance), > could you confirm that the library is GPLv2+ and GPLv2? > > Here is what is stated in fedora package : > > # GPLV2+ for the main lib (due to exif.c) and most plugins, some plugins > GPLv2 > License: GPLv2+ and GPLv2 > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libgphoto2.git/tree/libgphoto2.spec > > Thanking your for your consideration. > > Best regards, > > Kevin JOLY > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Gphoto-user mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gphoto-user ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Gphoto-user mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gphoto-user |
|
|
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:25:50AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> Hi, > > The library is LGPLv2.1+ (note the L) > > It was developed in a time where licensing was not strictly observed, so some > files with GPLv2 are mixed in, but the intent is LGPLv2.1+ That doesn't work from a legal POV. If the library has some source files that are GPLv2+ licensed, then the library as a whole can't be considered to be under the LGPLv2.1+ from POV of an application linking to it. Any GPLv2+ code would have to be stripped or relicensed to be able to call the library LGPLv2.1+ > > Ciao, Marcus > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:20:18AM +0200, Kévin Joly wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I almost integrated your library to Buildroot (a board support package > > generator for embedded software) and I was wondering about licencing. > > By the fact that it includes some GPLv2+ (as exif.c for instance), > > could you confirm that the library is GPLv2+ and GPLv2? > > > > Here is what is stated in fedora package : > > > > # GPLV2+ for the main lib (due to exif.c) and most plugins, some plugins > > GPLv2 > > License: GPLv2+ and GPLv2 > > > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libgphoto2.git/tree/libgphoto2.spec > > > > Thanking your for your consideration. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Kevin JOLY > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gphoto-user mailing list > > [hidden email] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gphoto-user > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > Gphoto-user mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gphoto-user Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Gphoto-user mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gphoto-user |
|
|
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:46:25AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:25:50AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The library is LGPLv2.1+ (note the L) > > > > It was developed in a time where licensing was not strictly observed, so some > > files with GPLv2 are mixed in, but the intent is LGPLv2.1+ > > That doesn't work from a legal POV. If the library has some source files that > are GPLv2+ licensed, then the library as a whole can't be considered to be > under the LGPLv2.1+ from POV of an application linking to it. > > Any GPLv2+ code would have to be stripped or relicensed to be able to call > the library LGPLv2.1+ Legally speaking yes. I looked at libgphoto2/exif.c and it seems it can be easily ripped out or replaced by libexif calls like in other parts of libgphoto2. Ciao, Marcus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Gphoto-user mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gphoto-user |
|
|
Hi,
For 2.5.13 I have replaced exif.c/exif.h with empty stubs, so the file is replaced by a LGPLv2+ one now. One caller had the gpi_exif_stat commented out already, the other caller I ported to use libexif. Ciao, Marcus On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:28:32AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:46:25AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:25:50AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The library is LGPLv2.1+ (note the L) > > > > > > It was developed in a time where licensing was not strictly observed, so some > > > files with GPLv2 are mixed in, but the intent is LGPLv2.1+ > > > > That doesn't work from a legal POV. If the library has some source files that > > are GPLv2+ licensed, then the library as a whole can't be considered to be > > under the LGPLv2.1+ from POV of an application linking to it. > > > > Any GPLv2+ code would have to be stripped or relicensed to be able to call > > the library LGPLv2.1+ > > Legally speaking yes. > > I looked at libgphoto2/exif.c and it seems it can be easily ripped out or replaced > by libexif calls like in other parts of libgphoto2. > > Ciao, Marcus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Gphoto-user mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gphoto-user |
«
Return to gphoto-user
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |