Re: Copyright assignment requirement

[David Chisnall]

On 31 May 2014, at 13:27, Ivan Vučica <ivucica@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 
>> On 31.05.2014., at 12:01, David Chisnall <theraven@sucs.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The FSF has used the copyright grants to change the license of code from 
>> GPLv2 or later to GPLv3 or later, which makes some people quite 
>> uncomfortable - who knows what GPLv4 will have in it?  A lot of the 
>> companies I work with have a no-GPLv3-code-in-the-door policy (and GPLv3 is 
>> not one of the licenses acceptable by the grant on which I'm currently 
>> funded), which means that I'm unable to use GNUstep for much that's 
>> work-related.  
> 
> Did I miss GNUstep becoming (L)GPLv3?
> 
> I see a copy of GPLv3 in Base -- but I also see GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1. I 
> presumed (L)GPLv2-or-optionally-later-if-you-insist applies.

The libraries are LGPLv2.1 or later, the utilities are GPLv3 or later.  As it's 
quite difficult to use GNUstep without things like defaults, gpbs, gdomap, and 
so on, this means that you need to have / distribute GPLv3 code to use GNUstep 
apps, which is problematic.  Now that Qt is LGPLv2.1 and C++11 has reference 
counting and a few other nice features (simple type inference and range-based 
for loops, for example), I'm considering moving the stuff I'm writing for work 
over to using it.  The OS X port will become a bit ugly, but the Windows and 
*NIX versions would be easier to deal with.

David

-- Sent from my PDP-11