chris wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 22 2011, Chris Ball wrote: > > I think you've repeatedly ignored Scott's claim that you can't modify > > COPYING or the source files because that would be *changing* the > > license, rather than taking advantage of GPLv3 redistribution rights. > > Can you ask Brett or someone at the FSF what the right thing to do is? > > I chatted with some FSF staffers on IRC, they agree with Bernie's > interpretation that modifying COPYING and the source headers *is* > the way that you "choose to redistribute under the GPLv3+ instead", > and that it's a modification of the license that was explicitly > allowed ahead of time by the "or later" clause. > > They haven't yet been able to find any documentation that explains > this or backs it up, though.
i think i've missed the point of all this. bernie's original mail points to the FSF rationale for GPL3 as the reason for moving sugar to GPL3, but somehow i think there must be more to it. i.e., what exactly are the arguments in favor of _sugar_ changing licenses? i have no stake in this decision at all -- i'm just wondering about the "why". paul =--------------------- paul fox, p...@laptop.org _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep