Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone

[Richard Levitte]

In message <address@hidden> on Fri, 20 May 2011 16:53:59 -0700, Zack Weinberg 
<address@hidden> said:

zackw> On 2011-05-20 4:46 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:
zackw> > GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out
zackw> > for
zackw> > almost 4 years.
zackw> >
zackw> > Can you elaborate?
zackw> >
zackw> > I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I
zackw> > don't understand what you mean by "premature".
zackw> 
zackw> Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body
zackw> of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in
zackw> particular, code under v2-only).  It would also make us
zackw> license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds
zackw> restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2).
zackw> 
zackw> It is my impression that the former body of code is much larger than
zackw> the latter, and it is my opinion that we should not switch as long as
zackw> that remains the case.

This discussion is the exact reason that a move to GPLv3 (or GPLv3+)
is premature.  It shows that we need to have a good look at the
concequences before making that move.

Cheers,
Richard

-- 
Richard Levitte                         address@hidden
                                        http://richard.levitte.org/

"Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!"
-- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish