[LAU] [semi-OT] Licences and your opinion and experience

Len Ovens len at ovenwerks.net
Mon Nov 25 23:37:08 UTC 2013

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:

> * GPL2/GPL2+: they are a vast majority, maybe just because It's older
> than v3. Here you can see some of the projects that we love at Musix
> and myself: Ardour (in its own repo), Qsynth, Qjackctl, (all the rncbc
> stuff), Rakarrack Hydrogen, LMMS
> * GPL3: Here we have Guitarix (also has GPL2 and BSD), Virtual MIDI
> Piano Keyboard

Using gpl2+ allows the code to be included in a gpl3 project and the new 
project becomes gpl3. gpl3 code can not be included in a gpl2 project. So 
from a reusable code POV gpl2+ makes things easier. But really lgpl is 
made for that use anyway, but it does mean separating your code into app 
and lib with 2 licences. So perhaps gpl2+ is the lazy way? Or maybe a lot 
of developers feel as you have, a bit confused and are hedging their bet. 
Gpl2 has been in use a long time, lots of the code I use is gpl2, 
gpl2+ makes it work with gpl3 too. It takes a lot of work to understand 
all the ramifications of the two versions. Most of us don't totally get it 
even reading them through. I think the people most likely to use v3 have 
seen some short coming in v2 they want to avoid in their project.

As an aside... what about using code snips from tutorials? For example 
putting an icon in the systray? Is that just use of the lib or is it using 
someone elses code? Do I need to use the same lic as the tutorial? If I 
had to use more than one reference what does that do? (code in python 
using gtk libs in this case)

I'm not really too worried in this case as the code so far is for my use, 
but many FOSS apps start that way.

Len Ovens

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list