On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 00:19 +0930, Dan Shearer wrote: > > Currently there is zero downside that I can see to maintaining the > license > > GPLv2. It doesn't restrict users from using GPLv3 code. There is > no > > restriction on mixing any kind of software licenses, the restriction > comes in > > distributing the code, and normally users are not going to > distribute Bacula > > code with their own GPLv3 additions. > > That seems a correct analysis. It is a per-project policy decision > whether to set things up so that others can distribute the code, or > not. > If you choose to prohibit redistribution in the case where someone > downstream adds GPLv3 code, that is your right. Some people may get a > surprise though.
Uhmm normally users gets bacula preferably in a distribution. Fedora was not able to ship bacula in the past for problems with mixing incompatible licenses that seem to be fixed, but if some important library is under GPLv3 and bacula is GPLv2 only they will have to exclude that functionality or stop distributing the code. Being able to distribute code is usually very important for it to be wildly adopted. That said, you may prefer to preclude some distribution and keep the license as is, as Dan correctly said, it is the authors decision. Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://samba.org _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.openchange.org/listinfo/devel
