On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:12:19AM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > 4. There is no disaster if we leave it GPL v2 as it is. I am sure > that there are more interesting bugs in our tracker that need to be > dealt with more urgently.
True... at least, unless we want to directly link with GPL v3 code (GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible). AFAIK we don't do this, so that's not a concern. Hmm, the new 10.5 GUI includes python... eh?!? http://www.python.org/psf/license/ # There is no GPL-like "copyleft" restriction. Distributing # binary-only versions of Python, modified or not, is allowed. # There is no requirement to release any of your source code. You # can also write extension modules for Python and provide them # only in binary form. # However, the Python license is compatible with the GPL, # according to the Free Software Foundation. How the bloody mao can GPLv3 be not compatible with GPLv2, but *is* compatible with a non-copyleft-restricted license like the python license? *sigh* ... sometimes I wonder if the FSF actually knows what it's doing. And I'm also starting to understand why the BSD people like to mock the GPL. I re-iterate my desire to declare independence from traditional copyright. I would cheerfully abolish all literature, film, music, and art from 1926 (or whenever) onwards, just to be able to create and enjoy software and art without concerns for copyright, trademark, and patent law. Let me write a website with logos to help users select their OS; let me distribute open-source software without concerns for the minutae of licenses; let me create programs without concerns for whether somebody has patented the act of double-clicking on a graphical element to initiate a sequence of computational steps. Ok, losing most of the Shostakovich string quartets would suck... but that's a price I'm willing to pay. Cheers, (?) - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
