Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: inkscape: Update to 1.0.

From: Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 23:53:24 -0400

Hello Leo,

Leo Famulari <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 09:36:13AM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> This was made here: https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/784.
>> If you have a good grasp of the GPL v2 vs GPL v3 merits, perhaps it'd be
>> useful to them to to post that there.  IIRC, I think the big new things
>> in GPL v3 were immunization to patent attacks (nice to have for
>> Inkscape) as well as preventing tivoization (this is not so applicable),
>> and clarifying that linking with GPL code means the whole should be GPL.
>> I'll re-read the licenses text in detail when I have a chance.
>> 
>> Anyway, if this doesn't move quickly enough, we could reluctantly build
>> Inkscape with its bundled lib2geom, which is a subset of the full
>> lib2geom and which doesn't link with GSL (IIRC).

Actually, this doesn't help with the licensing incompatibility, given
that Inkscape already depends on the GPL v3+ GNU Scientific Library
(GSL) and that the bundled lib2geom sources within Inkscape make use of
GSL.  I've pointed that here:
https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/784#note_343667232.

> In <https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/issues/784#note_343293612>
> they seem to demonstrate a misunderstanding about lib2geom's license.
> That commenter thinks that lib2geom is GPL2+, when it's actually
> LGPL-2.1 or MPL-1.1.

I've brought this to their attention, thank you.

> However, gnu.org says that LGPL-2.1 is compatible with GPL2 and GPL3. So
> maybe it's fine; I don't know. I think we should ask FSF for advice
> <https://www.fsf.org/licensing>.

That's a good idea.

Maxim