Re: GOffice licensing problem

Would it really be a problem if we released 2.6.0 as it is? Ofcourse
we'll continue to push to get goffice relicensed, but until then, I
don't see the need to wait really.

Our release notes can clearly state that we are _not_ compatible with
GPLv3 yet. We can ship 2.6.1 the day we get this issue resolved.

Input?
  Marc

On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 22:32 +0100, J.M. Maurer wrote:
> Hi there ants,
>
> There is one more issue holding up 2.6.0: the inclusion of goffice code
> in our tree. This makes us as a whole GPLv2 only, since goffice code is
> GPLv2 (not GPLv2+).
>
> This means we can't include our math plugin anymore in combination with
> the lastest GtkMathView release for example, since that is GPLv3.
>
> As I see it, we have 4 options:
>
> 1) There is no problem, just accept that we can not use GLPv3 code. If
> that means no more equations, so be it.
> 2) Have (parts of) goffice relicensed to GPLv2+ (which Jody thinks might
> be doable). I saw Red Hat as copyright owner for parts, so this might
> take more time than we'd like.
> 3) Ditch the goffice bits, and just add a dynamic dependency on
> libgoffice (this will also make the goffice plugin we ship work properly
> again iirc). I think this will be a unix only dep.
> 4) As far as I can see (just had a quick look, please correct me), we
> only include goffice code for a single color picker widget. We can ditch
> that, and just use the stock (and uglier) gtk color picker.
>
> Input?
>
> Marc
>
>
Received on Sun Dec 2 20:15:12 2007