Chris writes:
> The relicensing debate is something which is surprisingly complex. My
> view (after discussing this with Richard Fontana from the software
> freedom law center a couple years ago) is that the BSD license does
> not allow attaching restrictions to unmodified BSD-licensed code.
If i
> "Chris" == Chris Travers writes:
>>> "Chris" == Chris Travers writes:
>> Chris> So, suppose we do this. What would it mean for
>> contribution?
>>
>> Chris> If you are a current developer, would you be more or
>> less Chris> likely to contribute in th
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:28 PM, John Locke wrote:
> Personally I prefer GPLv2 over GPLv3. I'm somewhat agnostic about GPL vs
> BSD -- I do like GPL v2 a lot, and like its mechanism for protecting end
> customers -- but I also work on some BSD-licensed projects and have no
> qualms about a license
Personally I prefer GPLv2 over GPLv3. I'm somewhat agnostic about GPL vs
BSD -- I do like GPL v2 a lot, and like its mechanism for protecting end
customers -- but I also work on some BSD-licensed projects and have no
qualms about a license switch.
I would agree with your assessment, Chris, about d
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:03:43AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> I'm not a current contributor but as user and potential contributor I'd
> prefer to see the project stay with GPLv2 and away from GPLv3. BSD is
> ok but I prefer GPLv2 (or LGPL, or GPLv2 with stated exceptions). IMHO
> GPLv3 is overre
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>> "Chris" == Chris Travers writes:
> Chris> So, suppose we do this. What would it mean for contribution?
>
> Chris> If you are a current developer, would you be more or less
> Chris> likely to contribute in the future if
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:03 AM, John Hasler wrote:
> I'm not a current contributor but as user and potential contributor I'd
> prefer to see the project stay with GPLv2 and away from GPLv3. BSD is
> ok but I prefer GPLv2 (or LGPL, or GPLv2 with stated exceptions). IMHO
> GPLv3 is overreaching (
I'm not a current contributor but as user and potential contributor I'd
prefer to see the project stay with GPLv2 and away from GPLv3. BSD is
ok but I prefer GPLv2 (or LGPL, or GPLv2 with stated exceptions). IMHO
GPLv3 is overreaching (it's patent clauses may constitute copyright
abuse), unduly r
> "Chris" == Chris Travers writes:
Chris> So, suppose we do this. What would it mean for contribution?
Chris> If you are a current developer, would you be more or less
Chris> likely to contribute in the future if the code was
Chris> BSD-licensed?
Chris> If you are not a
Hi all;
It has occurred to me that since we have begun trying to replacing all
SQL-Ledger code, we have not discussed whether we want to stay with
the GPL v2 or later, or whether we want to look at licensing new code
under a different but compatible license. Note that for the
foreseable future (p
10 matches
Mail list logo
