On Nov 11, 11:27 am, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> wrote: > On 2010-11-11 17:21, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Nov 11, 7:20 pm, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> wrote: > >> On 2010-11-11 11:53, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > >>> The license must be a GPL version v2+ compatible license. > > >> Note that GPLv3 is NOT compaible with GPLv2! I quote > >> fromhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GNUGPL > > > but we talk about GPLv2+ (i.e. GPLv2 or a later version, as you > > please) > > That's even worse in terms of compatibility (because then the licence > must be compatible with GPLv2 and also with future versions of the GPL). > So if code is not compatible with GPLv2, it certainly will not be > compatible with GPLv2+. > > This in fact raises a good point: if Sage contains code licenced under > GPLv2 only, we cannot distribute it under GPLv2+!
In fact I think that on occasion William has asked GPLv2 people to relicense under 2+, and often (always?) they've been happy to do so. Is there any current code in Sage that is GPLv2 only? I am sure that makers of proprietary software cackle with glee every time these arguments surface in open source software. - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
