Hi Gerald,

I'll try to explain how I understood it:


On 02/26/2018 03:45 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:

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.
The issue is about packages, which have GPLv2only license and they need CUPS libraries 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?
 
I think the problem's description lies lower in Tom's email - begins "So, that leaves us with GPL version 2 (only) and Apache 2.0. In this scenario, it is worth noting a few things:"
-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Associate Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C