[bug#41118] [PATCH] gnu: inkscape: Update to 1.0.

[Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1576 bytes --]

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello Leo,
>
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> 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.

What exactly is the license incompatibility?  As Leo points out,
LGPL2.1+ is compatible with GPL3.  Your initial assessment that the
entire works become GPL3+ seems correct to me.

GNU has a handy chart that shows compatibility between the various GNU
licenses: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility>.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]