[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libredwg] Appeal for relicensing of LibreDWG

From: R. van Twisk
Subject: Re: [libredwg] Appeal for relicensing of LibreDWG
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:45:53 -0500

On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:

If librecad had a GPLv2+ plugin example code, I could upgrade that to v3 and implement libredwg.
if librecad has an interface, it does not matter what code is behind it.
we can also define a data interface that just uses files.

LibreCAD has a interface where it's not possible that a plugin can call LibreCAD or LibreCAD
can call the plugin. Everything must go though the plugin's interface.

All communication goes through the documen_interface,
for example if a plugin needs to add a line then we have a virtual function
for it : virtual void addLine(QPointF *start, QPointF *end) = 0;

And we have a QC_PluginInterface in case LibreCAD needs to call up
the plugin.

sounds like we are good, right?


I dont see any technical or legal problems.


On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 6:24 PM, R. van Twisk <address@hidden> wrote:
On this subject,

If LibreCAD has a plugin architecture that can be build outside of the LibreCAD tree, and this
plugin architecture is licensed as GPLv2+.

Can we then use LibreDWG within LibreCAD through out plugin architecture?

LibreCAD would never beable to call the plugin directly, and the plugin would
never beable to call LibreCAD code. In such case. Because the plugin architecture
would function as a interface between the two parts, essentially being
100% separated. Any data structure that exists is already licensed as GPLv2+
so not a single line of Code and/or data structure LibreDWG can see has a GPLv2 license

Are we good then?

Ries van Twisk
On Feb 11, 2012, at 6:16 AM, Felipe Castro wrote:

> 2012/2/11 Hamish <address@hidden>:
>> so if LibreDWG is a derivative product of a GPL3 project*, does the FSF
>> have the authority to even make that decision?
>> or is LibDWG (c) FSF too, not (c) Felipe ?
> Well, I had indicated the copyright holder as FSF, see the header in
> every source file, in the last version of LibDWG:
> So, the decision on relicensing it is not up to me at all, I would
> accept any decision from FSF. And I think I have already signed
> something to make this copyright FSF to be valid legally.
> But I also would like to have an answer to that question: what's the
> problem on having gplv3 plugins for the other software using
> LibreDWG...

James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova

reply via email to

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