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

[Glynn Clements]

[I wrote this on the 12th, but it doesn't appear to have been sent.]

Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva wrote:

> I am writing a new DWG import module based on v.in.dwg that uses
> LibreDWG, a free software DWG parsing library
> [http://gnu.org/software/libredwg].
> 
> Facts:
> 1. the module code is based on the original v.in.dwg, GPLv2 or later,
> but is not published yet (I am planning to keep the license).
> 2. LibreDWG is GPLv3 or later.
> 
> AFAIK, that would make a dwg-capable binary release GPLv3, but if the
> module's code remains GPLv2 or later there would be no conflict with
> the current GRASS licensing as long as binary releases are not shipped
> with DWG support built in.
> 
> Question:
> Is there a licensing problem?

I don't think so. And I don't think that there's a problem including a
LibreDWG-based version of v.in.dwg in any binary release.

All of the GRASS source code can be distributed under the terms of
GPLv2 or later, which allows distibution under the terms of GPLv3.

I'm not sure what (if anything) it means for a binary package to be
"GPLv3 or later" when all of the source code is available under the
"GPLv2 or later" terms.

-- 
Glynn Clements <address@hidden>