[Fedora-legal-list] 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