Sébastien Wilmet wrote at 15:35 (EDT) on Sunday: > We can also upgrade our software licences to the GPLv3 and LGPLv3.
While this is a separate issue from the main thread, I must admit that I personally would very much like to see this happen. I gave a talk at GUADEC four or five years ago now explaining how this could be done in an easy way, step by step. If anyone wants to work on this, I would be delighted to help. Emmanuele Bassi wrote at 05:11 (EDT) on Monday: >> on top of that, the v2 has given us the widest adoption possible, and Copyleft is always a trade-off between more software freedom for users and wider adoption. I don't actually think GPLv2 gave you the widest adoption possible -- a non-copyleft license like the X11 license probably would have done that, but at the cost of users' software freedom. RMS wrote at 12:58 (EDT) on Monday: >>> For many libraries, using LGPLv2.1 may be best, to allow use in >>> GPLv2-covered programs. I have to disagree with RMS on this point. As I proposed on desktop-devel a long time ago: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-July/msg00097.html IMO, the best license for currently LGPLv2.1-or-later libraries is to upgrade to (GPLv2-only|LGPLv3-or-later). As I suggested in my aforementioned GUADEC talk, this is an easy first step toward moving fully to the GPLv3 family of licenses. Emmanuele Bassi wrote at 05:11 (EDT) on Monday: >> even if we don't take the "or later" at face value, re-licensing our >> platform is going to be impossible: we don't have copyright assignment >> (for a lot of good reasons) and in some cases some contributors do not >> exist any more, making the re-licensing effort a non-starter. As others have noted, this doesn't really make sense. "or-later" is designed to make such GPL-family-version relicensing possible without copyright assignment nor CLAs. -- -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
