license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Chris Travers wrote:

> Hence I would argue that it is under both licenses as a matter of form.
> However, this may or may not be as a matter of substance.  For example, we
> inherit code under GPL v2 or later.  We don't have a right to put in a
> linking exception without rewriting all code touching a certain library
> call, and it links against OpenSSL indirectly.  This is not a problem for
> the GPL v2 because nothing stops you from distributing OpenSSL as a separate
> and distinct work (but still making the source available as required by the
> GPL v2).

Whether the combination of OpenSSL and any GPLv2 code you're using is a
single work under GPLv2 is a legal issue.  You may want to seek legal
advice on that.  It depends on the definition of derivative work.  If it
is a single work, you may be violating the GPL.

> It does run amok with the GPL v3.

Again, you should get legal advice on that.

> Hence GPL v2 or later makes no representation as to whether or not it is
> possible to distribute in compliance with the GPL v3.
> 
> Hence while as a matter of form LedgerSMB is under both licenses, as a
> matter of substance it is only under the GPL v2.  I am sure a lot of other
> projects are in the same boat.

Hmm.  It would seem to make more sense to just choose GPLv2, if you
believe GPLv3 is incompatible with your project.

Matt Flaschen