Maxim Cournoyer writes: > Hello Leo, > > Leo Famulari 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: .