David Woolley dixit:
> process was set up, so FSF didn't submit it for approval.
Did FSF submit GPLv2? I didn’t think submission was a requirement
initially.
John Cowan dixit:
>The GPLv2 was grandfathered
Ah.
>but licenses normally have to be submitted to OSI by the steward, so
>you'd have to
On 18/06/17 15:59, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on
https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s
the stance on it?
My guess is that it was already deprecated before the OSI approval
process was set up, so FSF didn't submit it for approval.
2017-06-18 10:59 GMT-04:00 Thorsten Glaser :
Is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on
> https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s
> the stance on it?
>
The GPLv2 was grandfathered, but licenses normally have to be submitted to
OSI by the steward, so you'd have to talk to
Hi,
is it deliberate or accident that the GPLv1 is not on
https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ? What’s
the stance on it?
It’s probably no real problem, but I maintain software
that’s got a very long history, which is GPLv1, and some
hosting platforms prescribe an OSI-approved licence.
T
4 matches
Mail list logo
