On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:49:30PM -0500, Brandon Low wrote: > Well, it's moot any way, since I have no applicable code, but you are > right, it doesn't impact Freenet the same way that it does Linux, my > concern is more one of compatibility with GPL2 distributions as > discussed in the linux kernel position statement.
It's not GPL2-incompatible until we make it exclusively GPL3+. Making it GPL2+ doesn't make it automatically GPL3+; you can still use it as GPL2. It does mean that the decision can be taken by consensus instead of unanymity, and in fact anyone who wants to fork it as GPL2 only or GPL3 only can do so. And GPL3 is compatible with a lot more than GPL2 is, because 90%+ of GPL code out there is "GPL 2 or later". Dijjer is, for example (we use a load of Dijjer code for messages etc). > > The GPL3, as the GPL2 is often accused of being, but is not in practice, > is a viral license, that is that there are some cases in which as > written, it would require a user of the license to release _other_ > property under a compatible license. This is a significant problem, and > as such, I think that specifying a specific version of the GPL to > license Freenet under would be a superior position. It actually seems > like this is what you intend any way since you state that there would be > no automatic upgrade to GPL3 but only a manual upgrade process. If > that's the case, why not specific GPL2 explicitly at this time? There is no automatic upgrade, but having the permission of all copyright holders means we can do the upgrade later on, if necessary, without requiring unanymity; it also means that all new authors will have to deal with the fact that it is "GPL 2 or later" i.e. we won't need to ask their permission later on. I disagree about "other property". If you link GPL code with anything else and distribute the result then the anything else must be GPL compatible. Right now, for example, ASL2 code isn't strictly compatible with "GPL 2 only". The only "other property" that the GPL3 requires you release that the GPL2 doesn't is: - Any patents required to use the software (in GPL2 you still had to do this under US law but in GPL3 it's explicit) - Any keys required to use modified versions of the software, if it's specifically designed to be run on a locked-down device which will only run signed code. I don't have a problem with either of those restrictions. GPL3 does however allow for a few other optional clauses. One of them provides for patent license reciprocity. I don't have a problem with that one either frankly and I don't see why you do.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
