gPhoto Software › gphoto-user

gphoto2 license

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

Kévin Joly

gphoto2 license

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

Marcus Meissner-4

Re: gphoto2 license

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

Daniel P. Berrange

Re: gphoto2 license

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

Regards,
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

Marcus Meissner

Re: gphoto2 license

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

Marcus Meissner-4

Re: gphoto2 license

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