[argyllcms] Re: Packaging aryllcms for distros, and licence incompatibilities

  • From: Richard Hughes <hughsient@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:55:03 +0000

2009/11/12 Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> You could well be right about that particular case. I'll see what
> I can do to resolve these couple of cases before the next release.
> In the short term you can simply omit the GPL2 files.

Sure, I could, but it's not really in the spirit of licensing. That,
along with the bundled libraries is making packaging ArgyllCMS really
unattractive right now.

>> See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing for a easy to understand
>> guide on what licence is compatible with each other.
> This doesn't seem to really talk about AGPLv3.

It does, and at also warns of using AGPLv3 and GPLv3 in the same
project if you follow the links. Why did you even want to re-licence
from GPLv2 to GPLv2 *and* GPLv3 *and* AGPLv3 in the first place? It
turned a good project with a few licence problems into a licensing
nightmare in my opinion.

All this is really making me want to not depend on ArgyllCMS in the
future and certainly not include it in a supported product like RHEL.
Sorry to be blunt.


Other related posts: