In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hugo van der Kooij writes:
>John P. Rouillard wrote:
>| In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>| Risto Vaarandi writes:
>|
>|> ...and what about the licensing change from GPLv2 to v3? [...] I
>|> suppose moving to GPLv3 is OK by majority of list members?
>|
>| Well to tell the truth I haven't been following the whole v2/v3
>| debate. However my understanding is that redistributing SEC using GPL
>| V2 licensed perl modules with a V3 licensed SEC is not possible.
>
>I can not say it does so. You might want to read:
>http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
>From that page:
GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3 if the program allows you to choose
"any later version" of the GPL, which is the case for most software
released under this license.
This says that it's compatible if it can be re-licensed under v3
(i.e. "any later version"). If not it would seem to be
incompatible. Since perl modules are not invoked via fork and exec and
share the memory space of the main program, I claim they are closer to
a linked in library than separate program hence the potential issue.
--
-- rouilj
John Rouillard
===========================================================================
My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Simple-evcorr-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/simple-evcorr-users
