From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: Kdenlive License follow-up.
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:40:13 +0200
Message-ID: <87muf1o0ki.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <Lp4mUwE--3-1@tuta.io>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34397)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1iAfoY-0000bp-Vs
 for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:40:36 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1iAfoX-00078b-SM
 for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:40:34 -0400
Received: from sender4-of-o52.zoho.com ([136.143.188.52]:21276)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1iAfoX-00074n-GD
 for help-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:40:33 -0400
In-reply-to: <Lp4mUwE--3-1@tuta.io>
List-Id: <help-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/help-guix>,
 <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:help-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-guix>,
 <mailto:help-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Help-Guix" <help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: marinus.savoritias@tuta.io
Cc: help-guix@gnu.org


Hi Fanis,

> I asked on the KDE matrix server regarding the Kdenlive licensing and
> turns out they use GPL-3 in OpenSUSE. Most files are either GPL-2 or
> GPL-3 or later + KDE Ev. clause so the package can't be licensed as
> GPL-2 like Gentoo or GPL-2+ as in Guix.

Thank you for the information.

If you could point us to a file that is licensed under GPL version 3 or
later we should change the license in the package definition to (list
license:gpl2+ license:gpl3+) with a comment to state that the package is
effectively under GPL version 3 or later.

> As far as I know if a package has some GPL-3 files then it becomes
> GPL-3 as a whole is that correct?

Not necessarily.  If it combines files under GPLv2 (only) with files
that are under GPLv3 (only) then the project as a whole has conflicting
licensing terms.  That=E2=80=99s why the =E2=80=9Cor later=E2=80=9D clause =
is really important.
Software containing files under GPLv2+ and GPLv3 (only) would have an
effective license of GPLv3 (only), while the individual files still
retain their own terms.

--
Ricardo