[Fedora-legal-list] Inclusion of GPLv3 lib in GPLv2 work

[Matt McCutchen]

On Sun, 2011-09-25 at 05:42 +0900, zxq9 wrote:
> I hadn't considered that. And this makes sense as concerns complete 
> programs.
> 
> 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.

-- 
Matt