On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal@redhat.com> wrote:
On 02/26/2018 10:41 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/08/2017 01:45 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> It will. Previously, it was licensed under GPLv2 + LGPLv2 with Apple
>> exceptions. Now it is ASL 2.0 across the board. GPLv2 projects can not
>> link to the newer version.
>
> On the other hand, libgcc switched to GPLv3+ with exceptions (but
> those exceptions do not restore GPLv2 compatibility), so under this
> strict interpretation, we could not ship any GPLv2 userspace software
> anyway.
>
> So I wonder if we can just declare CUPS a system library and move on.
Solomon asked about the issue on legal list
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/TYGLR34XR6L6MAXMVSDNYT3ZYXUKY7FX/
. I concluded from Tom's comment that even declaring CUPS as OS-supplied
library needs to be documented in a way (not mention this isn't solution
which Debian/Ubuntu would approve).
I presented both Tom's solutions (mentioned in his email) to Mike on
cups-devel mailing list+github issue, but without any decision yet
(pinged him during beta and release candidate).
It's sad - I will not package cups 2.3 for Fedora until it is solved...

I must be missing something.... what is sad?  It has been stated that CUPS does
not need any GPLv2 only component for building or linking.  Tom's comment stated:

"Thus, pretty much everyone is in agreement that GPLv3 + Apache 2.0 is a fine combination.
If the combination is GPLv2 or later, then you can resolve any concerns about compatibility between GPLv2 and
Apache 2.0 by using the GPLv3 license in situations where that work is combined with an Apache 2.0 work."

and

"As far as LGPL compatibility goes, because the LGPL provides permission for anyone to use the LGPL
work under the terms of the GPL (section 3 of the LGPLv2 and section 2.b of the LGPLv3). LGPLv2 permits the
terms of GPLv2 or GPLv3 (or any future version of GPL) to be applied in place of the LGPLv2 terms.
 LGPLv3 permits the terms of GPLv3 to be applied in place of the LGPLv3 terms.
Thus, LGPLv2 + Apache 2.0 _and_ LGPLv3 + Apache 2.0 are considered compatible."

So what's the issue?