[argyllcms] Re: Argyll CMS in Fedora (and Mandriva)

  • From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:02:48 +0100

Le samedi 22 décembre 2007 à 12:21 +1100, Graeme Gill a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Ok, the fedora-legal verdict is in. Ignoring the GPLv2 files I had
> > already removed it seems there is a problem with cgats/License.txt &
> > icc/License.txt
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=421921#c13
> I'm rather surprised, since Ghostscript reviewed this licence,
> and has no issues with it.

You know how it is, talk to two different lawyers, get two different
opinions, as soon as the problem is not 100% clear-cut. Anyway probably
means we need to check if our Ghostscript includes this code, and remove
it till the re-licensing.

This would have been so much easier for us if icc/cgats had been clean
shared dynamic libraries instead of being deeply embedded and hidden in
various codebases.

> > 2. dual-licence this code under GPLv3 and its current licence. The code
> > integrated in argyll would be under GPLv3 clauses, and the original
> > licensing conditions would still be available for non-GPLv3 projects
> This is not as straightforward as it seems, because it is necessary
> then to have a condition that the two offered licenses not
> be removed, and the phrasing of this type of condition appears
> to be where the problem is with the existing libusb/cgats licenses.
> > 3. select another license already considered to be GPLv3-compatible by
> > big actors like the FSF, and use it as-is without changing its text
> > (which may trigger unforeseen compatibility problems). For example, LGPL
> > v3, 3-clause BSD, etc
> If it makes things more straightforward, then I'm prepared to simply
> switch to the MIT license for these two libraries.

I think that would be all right but it should be better to discuss it
with Tom Callaway who is the Fedora liaison between dumb technical
people like you and me and enlightened lawyers.

> > My preference would be 3. or 1. but that's something for the authors to
> > decide. In the meanwhile Fedora Argyll CMS integration has been halted.
> Given Ludovico Fischer's report, and my experience with getting
> instruments to work with USB, I think you need to take another look
> at the libusb issue as well.

Will be done when Argyll is imported in Fedora devel as we'll then get a
proper issue tracker where problems can be assigned to proper people
(Fedora libusb maintainer, etc). Problems reported by Fedora users on
their devices will then be handled.

Note that Fedora does not buy hardware to perform tests, even Red Hat
only does it for very specific enterprise configurations when there is
an agreement with the hardware manufacturer. So only devices owned by
one or several Fedora users, who take the time to report problems, will
be tested.


Nicolas Mailhot

Other related posts: