I am a mere bystander, but I wonder whether LGPL2.1.txt GPL2.txt GPL3.txt should be under %doc as well.
Additionally, "License: GPL-2.0 and LGPL-2.1"
However, as COPYING stats: "Most of Inkscape source code is available under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later, with the exception of a few files copied from GIMP, which are available under GNU GPL version 3 or later. As such, the complete binaries of Inkscape are currently covered by the terms of GNU GPL version 3 or later."
Not necessarily. It depends on the nature of the interaction between the GPL-2.0+ and the GPL-3.0 files. Can somebody check to see whether the GPL-3.0+ files are built into e.g. a standalone binary and/or are communicated with by the GPL-2.0+ components through sockets/execs etc rather than linking?
I am a mere bystander, but I wonder whether LGPL2.1.txt GPL2.txt GPL3.txt should be under %doc as well.
Additionally, "License: GPL-2.0 and LGPL-2.1"
However, as COPYING stats: "Most of Inkscape source code is available under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later, with the exception of a few files copied from GIMP, which are available under GNU GPL version 3 or later. As such, the complete binaries of Inkscape are currently covered by the terms of GNU GPL version 3 or later."
(There are also still parts under LGPL-2.1.)
@legal-team @babelworx can you check this?
Not necessarily. It depends on the nature of the interaction between the GPL-2.0+ and the GPL-3.0 files. Can somebody check to see whether the GPL-3.0+ files are built into e.g. a standalone binary and/or are communicated with by the GPL-2.0+ components through sockets/execs etc rather than linking?
I'll check with the inkscape devs, but I am pretty sure the code in question is the extentions written in Python.
It is single c source code file for a widget
follow-up: and how to proceed now to get it into factory? @legal-team @babelworx
and how to proceed now to get it into factory?