RE: GPLv2 licensing issues

[Nicola Pero]

> It seems like not many people know about the licensing problem that we
> have between GPLv2 and LGPLv3 (I didn't even know the problem existed
> until a month ago), so here is a bit of an explanation of the problem:
> 
> Briefly, the GPLv2 says (among other things) that if you link against a
> library, the complete work has to be redistributable under the terms of
> the GPLv2, if you want to redistribute it. 


From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html:

> I'm writing a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) 
> and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program 
> with the Visual C++ (or Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the 
> GPL?
>
>    The GPL permits this because that run-time library normally accompanies 
> the compiler or interpreter you are using. The run-time libraries here are 
> “System Libraries” as GPLv3 defines them, and as such they are not considered 
> part of the Corresponding Source. GPLv2 has a similar exception in section 3.

It seems that GNUstep core falls exactly under the same exceptions; libobjc, 
gnustep-base and gnustep-gui are the run-time "system libraries" for 
Objective-C 
on a GNU system.

It's still a good idea to update the GPL/LGPL versions of all software though. 
:-)

Thanks