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

  • From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:55:09 +1100

Richard Hughes wrote:
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.

You seem to be making a lot of problems for yourself. I don't
quite understand why you think that temporarily removing incompatibly
licensed files is not a reasonable approach.
I don't think you are being terrible fair either - you are busy
adding dependencies to the package by splitting libraries that
it depends on out of it, while complaining that I have shipped
it with exactly 1 dependency, Jam. That may be fine for your
situation, but you are making no allowance for other users of Argyll.

It does, and at also warns of using AGPLv3 and GPLv3 in the same
project if you follow the links.

I understood from the GNU website that AGPLv3 and GPLv3 are
compatible (it would be strange if they were not).

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.

I guess that's one of the drawbacks with accepting contributions
from other people, one ends up with a variety of licenses.

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.

Feel free not to include it then. People interested in color can
always download it from the ArgyllCMS website, and at least
then the package will have better functional integrity.

Graeme Gill.



Other related posts: