On 7/4/07, Dave Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 15:32 -0500, Chris Weiss wrote:
>
> I say we leave Stable alone and evaluate the "need" in HEAD. If the
> libs allow v3 then we can change head.
>
RMS has asked all GNU packages to relicense ASAP. As it means that we
do yo
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 15:32 -0500, Chris Weiss wrote:
> On 7/4/07, Dave Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hope that in the coming weeks we can release a new 0.9.16.01x GPLv3
> > version of phpGroupWare.
>
> What's the drawback of leaving it as "v2 or later"? seems there are
> benefits to this
On 7/4/07, Dave Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hope that in the coming weeks we can release a new 0.9.16.01x GPLv3
version of phpGroupWare.
What's the drawback of leaving it as "v2 or later"? seems there are
benefits to this due to the v2 and v3 incompatibility.
I see drawbacks to full-on
Hi all,
I should have sent this out earlier.
As many of you are probably aware the GPLv3 was released last week.
Technically phpGroupWare is already covered by the new version of the
GPL we use the "GPL v2 or later" as our license. In the coming weeks
the CVS repository will be formally relic
