Greetings! I've received a thoughtful reply claiming that the LGPLv3 is more onerous than v2 in that it obligates all distributors to provide physical media, and not simply provide electronic distribution. I cannot find this text -- anyone know for sure?
Take care, Donald Winiecki <[email protected]> writes: > Given recent information posted by Camm, I don't see a special reason > to not move to LGPLv3, as that wouldn't encroach on users of > Axiom-family tools. > > But that's just me and if there are good reasons to not move this way, > perhaps not assigning copyright to FSF would also be an appropriate > move to keep that organization from doing things the principals of GCL > would rather not be done. > > And it's good to see that I can still say somewhat problematic things > without really trying -- aggressive or not... !^0 > > _don > > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Camm Maguire <[email protected]> wrote: >> Greetings! >> >> Gabriel Dos Reis <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Donald Winiecki <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] >> ========================================================================== >> "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah >> > > > > -- Camm Maguire [email protected] ========================================================================== "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah _______________________________________________ Gcl-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcl-devel
