dolfin team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:44:47AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> On Monday August 22 2011 10:39:33 Anders Logg wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:22:44AM -0700, Johan Hake wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > A recent email discussion with Andre made me aware (again) of the
> > > incompatability between QPL and GPL. Not sure we have settled this
> > > issued, but
> > >
> > > I googled it and found the following link:
> > >   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> > >
> > > scroll down to QPL. Here they suggest the following solution:
> > >   However, if you have written a program that uses QPL-covered library
> > >   (called FOO), and you want to release your program under the GNU GPL,
> > >   you can easily do that. You can resolve the conflict for your program
> > >
> > >   by adding a notice like this to it:
> > >      As a special exception, you have permission to link this
> > >      program with the FOO library and distribute executables, as
> > >      long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard
> > >      to all of the software in the executable aside from FOO.
> > >
> > >   You can do this, legally, if you are the copyright holder for the
> > >   program. Add it in the source files, after the notice that says the
> > >   program is covered by the GNU GPL.
> > >
> > > For this to work all copyright holders need to agree. Not sure we need
> > > another author content process to use this solution though.
> >
> > Andre also mentioned to me that we actually don't need those special
> > QPL pieces of CGAL (but can use GTS instead with improved efficiency)
> > so it might not be a problem. Andre knows more about this.
>
> Then we "just" need to reimplement that part... Sounds tedious.

I think Andre has already done that, more or less.

--
Anders