Re: GPLv3

[Shai Ayal]

On 9/14/07, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 14-Sep-2007, Shai Ayal wrote:
>
> | Do we need all the libraries we link to to be GPLv3 compatible?
> | Isn't it just the libraries we distribute that need to be compatible?
>
> I think the libraries we link to need to have compatible licenses,
> whether we distribute them or not.
>
> Others have brought up the interface issues of things like the BLAS
> and LAPACK, and in that case I think it doesn't matter so much except
> that there must be some library that implements the interface (most
> likely in a serious way, not just a bunch of stubs that say "sorry,
> not implemented!) that can be used and has a compatible license.  But
> even then, if you were to distribute a binary of Octave such that it
> could only be used with MKL (statically linked, for example) then I
> think that would not meet the requirements of the GPL, even though MKL
> is just one of many libraries that implements the interface.
>
> | In the graphics section I will be adding:
> | freetype which has a BSD like license which shouldn't be a problem,
> | fltk which is LGPLv2 with some restrictions lifted -- this could be a 
> problem.
> | FTGL - BSD like or LGPLv2
> | gl2ps - GPLv2 or later
>
> LGPLv2, even without the "any later version" clause is OK if all we
> are doing is using a library and not borrowing portions of the code.
> See the compatibility chart on the GPL FAQ page.  Note that there are
> two sections to the chart, and upgrading to LGPLv3 is only needed in
> the "borrowing code" section of the chart, not in the "using a
> library" section.
>
> | URW fonts - GPLv2 for whatever that means for fonts
>
> OK, I'm not sure about fonts, so we will probably have to ask about
> that.  Does the statement for the font files include the "any later
> version" clause?

well, the GPLv2 COPYING file is included together with the followign
text in the readme:

The license for result is (of course) same as for original fonts,
i.e. GPL with an exception that you can put these fonts in your own non-GPLed
documents. (Looks like LGPL from my point of view =).


If this poses a problem, we could try out the "liberation fonts" by
redhat, but they also have licensing problems, cf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_fonts

I like URW because they are very close to the postscript default fonts
and so you get very similar looking screnn and hardcopy

Shai