[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: updating GPL to version 3?

From: Anthony W. Youngman
Subject: Re: updating GPL to version 3?
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:44:43 +0100
User-agent: Turnpike/6.05-U (<Q8R6TxScPTStg2mvDSc+2u+ftn>)

In message <address@hidden>, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen<address@hidden> wrote:
Hmm, I read a bit more in that thread.  It looks to me as if

 1 there is a basic consensus amongst the core developers
  that a move to GPL v3 (not sure about GPL v3 or later)
  is desirable

 2a Han-Wen even has done quite a bit of initial paperwork

 2b no-one has offered to do the work of tracking down and
   get permissions/paper work for the remaining authors

 2c Han-Wen is not easily inspired to do silly admin stuff
   esp. sot so when attempted to muscle him into it with
   "do what I tell you" disguised in invalid
   thou-must-bow-for-the-almighty-GNU arguments :-)

 3 there is a possibility of transferring copyright to
  the FSF [or another governing entity], which could
  have a simplifying/catalizing effect on 1 and/or 2

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.

If people are happy moving to v3, at least require all *new* stuff to be explicitly v2/v3.

That way, lily remains v2, but the hassle of shifting is reduced - when you decide to go for it you can ignore sorting out the copyright of all patches after "today", whenever that date was, because you know they're licenced okay already.

Anthony W. Youngman - address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]