On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 05:42 +0900, zxq9 wrote:
I hadn't considered that. And this makes sense as concerns
I'm confident, however, that the intent of the GPLv3 when it was written
was not to hamstring the resurrection and improvement of GPLv2 code by
its own users with an intent to release to other users (the GPLv2 having
been written before any of this was thought up)
Again, the intent that matters is that of the projects that chose to
release under GPLv2-only and GPLv3-only, respectively, because neither
wanted their work being used under the other license.
by way of forbidding
inclusion of new code which amounts to nothing more than a format
interpretation library but not an application or even a complete program
of its own. The GPL attitude toward system libraries seems to strongly
indicate this as well. But a format interpretation library is hardly
"system level" so it doesn't qualify for the exclusions provided for
system libraries explicit in the GPL.
I feel your pain, and personally believe that FSF's claim about dynamic
linking is bogus, under which assumption GPLvN would become essentially
equivalent to LGPLvN. (Though like the Fedora project, I am playing it
safe and not acting in reliance on this.) But with respect to the
intent of QCad CE, based on their choice of GPLv2 and not LGPLv2, I can
only presume that they did intend to prohibit the kind of linking you
are now pursuing (to the extent possible under copyright law). Sorry.