[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[libredwg] Re: [GRASS-dev] licensing question

From: Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva
Subject: [libredwg] Re: [GRASS-dev] licensing question
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:48:43 -0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090817)

Markus Neteler wrote:
sorry for no answer so far. This is complicated matter and I am not
a laywer - so no real idea what to say.
Hi Markus, thanks for your answer. I'm almost sure that there's not a juridical problem, since all the licensing seem to be legal. That means, if I release my own version of GRASS (say, a fork - I won't do it!) with built-in, linked to LibreDWG and distribute a binary release, the resulting binary package will be GPLv3 (since all GRASS code is GPLv2+), AFAIK.

My point actually is whether that will be compatible with GRASS's policy or not, at least to commit it to the Addons repository. As I've written this sentence, it just came to my mind that the original included a proprietary header, and linked to a proprietary library (OpenDWG's DWGDirect), but wasn't compiled to any official binary releases for default and has been in trunk for years. Therefore, I assume that it'll be ok to have a module linking to a GPLv3+ library.

Please notice this piece of text from the copyright file from the debian package:

   (Keep in mind that code linking into GRASS can only be distributed
   if compatible with the GPL.)

I take liberty to cc to Francesco who is the Debian-GIS lead, he may
have a suggestion for us.
Francesco, would you say that a dwg-capable GRASS, linked with LibreDWG (which would result in a GPLv3 binary package), would be ok with the Debian project guidelines? We are planning to propose libredwg as a Debian package in the future, and default DWG support would be a plus, IMHO.

Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva
GNU LibreDWG maintainer

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]