Re: CGAL license change to (L)GPLv3+

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On 02/13/2012 11:42 AM, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> Le lundi 13 février 2012 11:30:06 Tom Callaway a écrit :
>> If the package contains some libraries under LGPLv3+, and some binaries
>> which are under GPLv3+, then "License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+" is appropriate.
> The package contains some libraries (binaries) that are under LGPLv3+, and a 
> huge set of C++ headers (.h files). That headers set is decomposed into "CGAL 
> packages", with distinct functionality. Some of those packages (the 
> foundations of CGAL, with low-level functionalities) are under LGPLv3+, and 
> some other packages (higher level functionalities) are under GPLv3+.
> Maybe that would make sense to decompose the CGAL package into two, but there 
> is only one upstream tarball. Users have to have a look at the license notice 
> in the headers, or to the manual, to know which license applies to a given 
> package.
> Actually, there is also five files taken from Boost libraries, and shipped 
> inside the CGAL tarball, that are under the Boost Software License, v1.0. 
> Should I say "License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+ and Boost"?

Well, the headers should be in a -devel package, separate from the
libraries. Are all of these headers compiled into the libraries? If so,
then it is likely that the libraries aren't really only LGPLv3+, but
also GPLv3+.

Again, it is hard to say for certain without actually looking at the code.


Fedora Project
legal mailing list

[Fedora Users]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

Powered by Linux