libjingle contains GPL files, making the BSD license invalid

[GoogleCodeExporter]

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
We checked the Licenses in libjingle; we discover that libjingle won't
compile without this two files: 

libjingle-0.3.11/talk/session/phone/linphonemediaengine.cc
libjingle-0.3.11/talk/session/phone/linphonemediaengine.h

which are GPLv2. 

Since libjingle can't be compiled without those, that makes libjingle
GPLv2, nor BSD License.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
libjingle 0.3.11

Please provide any additional information below.
Bug in SUSE: 

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=356619 

Original issue reported on code.google.com by maur...@gmail.com on 4 Mar 2008 at 7:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

congrats!

Original comment by AEshya...@gmail.com on 9 May 2008 at 7:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

please verify that the license has changed to "GPLv2 or later", as in these 
files,
rather than simply "GPLv2" as stated on the project page.  Since many projects 
are
licensed GPLv3 or AGPLv3 this is vital.

Original comment by ArcRi...@gmail.com on 9 May 2008 at 8:30

[GoogleCodeExporter]

We don't have the option to list gplv2 or later in the system. I'll look into 
that: 

The code in question is conditionally compiled into libjingle
depending on whether you have a separate library named GIPS or not.
The code is only intended as a default fallback for when GIPS does not
exist.   In addition, the code is not actually necessary for libjingle to work,
it only exists to support talk/examples/call.  The fact that it is
compiled in by default (and not just as part of the example) is
actually a bug, according to the developer.

That said, we are happy to place this version of libjingle under the
GPLv2 license.  In the future, we will simply remove the code for the
example (and the GPL code it relies on that sits in a non-example dir
right now), and release those versions under BSD again.

Original comment by cdibona on 9 May 2008 at 8:47

• Changed state: Fixed
• Added labels: Type-Other
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

As an fyi... the way we denote licenses on code.google.com doesn't have a 'or 
any
later' clause in the drop down. We count on the users of the software to read 
the
licenses and abide by them. And since not -all- gplv2 apps have the or any 
later,
we're unlikely to add that to the default display of licenses, so that's a 
won't fix. 

Original comment by cdibona on 9 May 2008 at 8:58

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You could shorten it to GPL2+ and offer it as an additional license.  The 
primary use
of the license field, in my mind, is for license compatibility - whether 
something is
"or later" or not is the primary factor in (L)GPLv2->(L/A)GPLv3 compatibility.

Original comment by ArcRi...@gmail.com on 9 May 2008 at 9:51