Greetings! Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@cs.tamu.edu> writes:
> Donald Winiecki <dwinie...@boisestate.edu> writes: > > | A change to the most recent licenses will make things consistent with > | FSF's current way of thinking about open source, though more > | aggressive developers seem to think it's restrictive. Given the > | typical users and usual applications of GCL, this may not be an issue. > > It is my opinion that GPLv3 goes a bit too far -- but I would dispute > the label "aggressive developer" :-) > > | But I'm not sure -- if GCL is licensed under GPL3, does that mean that > | anything built with or under it will also have to be licensed under > | GPL3? (I guess that's why Camm is querying the Axiom list.) > > Indeed. That does have some implication for systems like the AXIOM family. > If I understand correctly, it will be a move from LGPL to GPLv3? > Please excuse my ambiguous wording. The proposal is to license GCL under LGPLv3 (currently LGPLv2), and the documentation under the FDLv1.3. The LGPL 'library' license is non-viral for apps such as axiom. > | And copyrighting GCL under the FSF seems like a reasonable idea, but > | without Camm, GCL would be fairly well static, I think. > > well those are separate issues, I would think. Having FSF owns > copyright relieves from some legal paperwork and burdens. That is > largely orthogonal to who actually does the development work. Yes, this is orthogonal, and not too pressing. But I do wonder if the copyright holder has final say over issues such as licensing, which might not be the case now. Take care, > > -- Gaby > > > > -- Camm Maguire c...@maguirefamily.org ========================================================================== "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
