Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CGAL license change to (L)GPLv3+

[Nils Philippsen]

On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 15:29 +0100, Laurent Rineau wrote:
>  Le mardi 07 février 2012 14:21:53 Laurent Rineau a écrit :
>  > From release 4.0, the CGAL libraries will be released under LGPLv3+ for the
>  > foundations, and GPLv3+ for the high level packages (instead of LGPLv2 and
>  > QPL respectively).
>  
>  In the CGAL.spec file, I mentionned "License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+". Could not I
>
>  simplify that into: "License: GPLv3+"? 
You should probably ask this question on the fedora-legal mailing list
(on Cc).

Nils
-- 
Nils Philippsen      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase 
Red Hat               a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nils(a)redhat.com       nor Safety."  --  Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint:      C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

CGAL license change to (L)GPLv3+

[Tom Callaway]

On 02/13/2012 09:42 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>  On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 15:29 +0100, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> > Le mardi 07 février 2012 14:21:53 Laurent Rineau a écrit :
> >> From release 4.0, the CGAL libraries will be released under LGPLv3+ for the
> >> foundations, and GPLv3+ for the high level packages (instead of LGPLv2 and
> >> QPL respectively).
> >
> > In the CGAL.spec file, I mentionned "License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+". Could
> not I 
> > simplify that into: "License: GPLv3+"?
>  
>  You should probably ask this question on the fedora-legal mailing list
>  (on Cc). 
Without looking at the code, the answer is "maybe".

If the libraries are composed of a combination of LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+
sources, then it would be accurate to simplify to "License: GPLv3+".

If the package contains some libraries under LGPLv3+, and some binaries
which are under GPLv3+, then "License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+" is appropriate.

Hope that helps,

~tom

==
Fedora Project

CGAL license change to (L)GPLv3+

[Laurent Rineau]

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"?

-- 
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau

CGAL license change to (L)GPLv3+

[Tom Callaway]

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.

~tom

==
Fedora Project

CGAL license change to (L)GPLv3+

[Laurent Rineau]

Le lundi 13 février 2012 12:21:14 Tom Callaway a écrit :
>  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+. 
I forgot to say that CGAL is mostly a set of libraries of C++ templates, like 
Boost libraries. So, most of its code are in the C++ headers.

The headers are all in CGAL-devel.

The CGAL package itself contains a few (binary) libraries, whose sources (and 
used headers) are all under LGPLv3+.

-- 
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau

CGAL license change to (L)GPLv3+

[Tom Callaway]

On 02/14/2012 05:32 AM, Laurent Rineau wrote:
>  License: LGPLv3+ and GPLv3+ and Boost 
Upon further review, this is the most appropriate license tag for CGAL
as packaged.

~tom

==
Fedora Project