* NightStrike wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:43:44AM CET: > On 12/17/07, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sebastian Pipping wrote: > > > > > Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > > > The license update can simply be temporarily reverted back to v2 (with > > > > FSF approval). > > > > > > I'd like to see that as well but I doubt it will happen. > > > > It's not politically feasible since official GNU projects are supposed > > to reflect the GNU project's philosophies. I seem to recall that there > > was a mandate that all official GNU projects were expected to use v3 for > > any releases past some date (2007-07-31?) which means reverting to v2 is > > not on the table. But I could be misremembering.
That could be the case; but also, it sounded like we, for autotools, were specifically allowed (FSF-wise) to do a release with v2+, due to these issues. It would mean we'd have to revert existing license changes though. The other small issue I have with that is, that recent contributors may expect their code to be released under GPLv3+ with exceptions, not GPLv2+ with exceptions. This is not a legal issue -- the contributors have copyright assignments in place allowing the FSF to take this step -- but one of me not wanting to step on toes. Sigh, I guess it's time to start asking people about this. > Why would they expect conformance to a policy that isn't yet ready? Exactly. > Also, what is the actual hold up? Where in the pipeline is the issue > stagnating? At the FSF lawyers, trying to rewrite the license exceptions that are present in autotools, so that the rewording is suitable for GPLv3+. Cheers, Ralf
