Hi,
On 2007-06-27 02:23:27 +0200 "Nicola Pero"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we decide to move to the new license, then my opinion on the best
way
for the project to proceed is to change the license of our
applications
(GWorkspace, Gorm, etc) within GNUstep itself to the GPLv3 license.
All
of the libraries should remain LGPL.
You probably mean that the software which is currently under GPLv2
will be
moved to GPLv3, and software that is currently under LGPLv2 will be
moved to
LGPLv3.
Well, since the code we have inside GNUstep has a copyright assignment
to the FSF and it has the "v2 or later" clause, do we have a choice at
all? or any restriction with older code?
Currently I don't feel strongly against it and I think there are good
reasons to move forwards (so to avoid potential problems with other
projects, but that may be not of too great concern for us).
Although rising a great flameware about licensing, a matter in which I
am only a layman, is not my intention, I do remember I followed
several discussions and remember some people felt the v3 inadequate or
even counterporducing and it was better to stick with v2. Linus
himself felt v2 was better until shortly when forks were menaced.
I didn't have a look at LGPLv3 though, since the discussions I
followed originated from Kaffe.
Apart from obvious arguments like "to keep up with times" or "to
comply with advices by FSF" it would be nice if people could write
reasons against or in favor of this license update, especially if
there are points where the arguments touch GNUstep specifically. Hot
points for v3 regard especially the use of code in connection with the
internet, sharing and online usage, applicaiotn server providers, etc.
Our WebObject clones might be interested?
Cheers,
Riccardo
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
