On 02/27/2018 03:22 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
AA. Fedora is not (at this time) concerned about license
issues arising from the relicensing of CUPS to Apache 2.0, in as much
as this applies to linking of components together (our use case).
BB. If you are planning on (or have) copying code from CUPS and
including it in a GPLv2 only licensed work, seek legal counsel, that
is a more complicated scenario that Fedora does not face right now (as
far as I know).
Then I don't quite get A. paragraph, where Tom talks about requirements
which need to be done. Tom, would you mind clarify it for me, please?
As I understand the issue - this is only related to a few projects
that are GPLv2 and are using CUPS in such a way that causes license
issues. If that is the case they should simply change their license
to GPLv2 or later.
That's the issue - change of license needs mutual agreement
owner and all contributors, whose made significant contribution into
project (AFAIK) . And it can be difficult.
It's that simple. In other words, the onus to fix the issue
with the projects that are using GPLv2 - not CUPS. If they don't want
to change their license, going forward they shouldn't be using cups.
Yes, I can package cups 2.3 for Fedora, but I don't want to create
additional work for packagers, whose components depend on CUPS, without
clear steps what to do when their package is GPLv2 only - because it is
not clearly clarified by upstream yet.
I would like to package new cups when I can clearly say - "Hi, CUPS
moved to Apache 2.0 license in 2.3.0 version, which is incompatible with
GPLv2 only. Packages which are GPLv2 only needs to be re-licensed, there
is only way.".
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Associate Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C