Re: gphoto2 license

Hi,

For 2.5.13 I have replaced exif.c/exif.h with empty stubs,
so the file is replaced by a LGPLv2+ one now.

One caller had the gpi_exif_stat commented out already,
the other caller I ported to use libexif.

Ciao, Marcus


On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:28:32AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:46:25AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 08:25:50AM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The library is LGPLv2.1+ (note the L)
> > > 
> > > It was developed in a time where licensing was not strictly observed, so some
> > > files with GPLv2 are mixed in, but the intent is LGPLv2.1+
> > 
> > That doesn't work from a legal POV. If the library has some source files that
> > are GPLv2+ licensed, then the library as a whole can't be considered to be
> > under the LGPLv2.1+ from POV of an application linking to it. 
> > 
> > Any GPLv2+ code would have to be stripped or relicensed to be able to call
> > the library LGPLv2.1+
> 
> Legally speaking yes.
> 
> I looked at libgphoto2/exif.c and it seems it can be easily ripped out or replaced
> by libexif calls like in other parts of libgphoto2.
> 
> Ciao, Marcus

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot