On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 09:45 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> > wrote: > > If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2- > > only > > or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening > > the > > can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions > > (such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins), > > because > > that's an existing problem. > > > > What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current > > license cause that require a relicense? > > > > Cheers > > Sounds like the license is already GPLv3+, since it uses GPLv3+ > source > files, and the existing GPLv2+ notices are incorrect or misleading.
Were those licenses applied in error, or imported from projects that were GPLv3 themselves? -- nautilus-list mailing list nautilus-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
