LibRaw: possible license issues

[Andrew Haley]

On 11/26/2012 06:29 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>>>> Why does it matter?  Their code hasn't changed, and has not become GPLv3. The package is GPLv3+.
>>> 
>>> It matters because Shotwell links to GStreamer.
>>> 
>>> GStreamer applications either opt for LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions because they might end up using proprietary or otherwise unfavourably licensed GStreamer plugins .
>> 
>> Which is fine, because GPLv3+ is compatible with LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+.
> 
> You missed the "proprietary or otherwise unfavourably licensed" part. :-) There are proprietary GStreamer plugins for patent encumbered formats. eg., the MP3 codecs from Fluendo.
> 
> Granted that Fedora does not ship such GStreamer plugins, but some of our downstreams do. (I don't think I am allowed to get into specifics here.)

OK, so there are some proprietary or otherwise encumbered plugins
that might not be GPLv3-compatible but might be compatible with GPLv2.
And you're worried that some unwitting user might by mistake break
the terms of a licence.  Or, perhaps, some downstream might not be
able to ship a plugin because they fear it's not allowed.

> Plus, this practice of either using LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ with exceptions for applications is so widespread in GStreamer land (Totem, PiTiVi, Rhythmbox, Transmageddon, etc.) that I was not comfortable with having a situation where the application silently ends up under a different license due to another library.

I don't think that's a problem because the whole purpose of the
"or any later version of the GPL, at your choice" is to allow
the GPL to be updated.

Andrew.