[Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing

[Camm Maguire]

Greetings!

Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> writes:

> Donald Winiecki <address@hidden> writes:
>
> | A change to the most recent licenses will make things consistent with
> | FSF's current way of thinking about open source, though more
> | aggressive developers seem to think it's restrictive.  Given the
> | typical users and usual applications of GCL, this may not be an issue.
>
> It is my opinion that GPLv3 goes a bit too far -- but I would dispute
> the label "aggressive developer" :-) 
>
> | But I'm not sure -- if GCL is licensed under GPL3, does that mean that
> | anything built with or under it will also have to be licensed under
> | GPL3?  (I guess that's why Camm is querying the Axiom list.)
>
> Indeed.  That does have some implication for systems like the AXIOM family.
> If I understand correctly, it will be a move from LGPL to GPLv3?
>

Please excuse my ambiguous wording.  The proposal is to license GCL
under LGPLv3 (currently LGPLv2), and the documentation under the
FDLv1.3.  The LGPL 'library' license is non-viral for apps such as
axiom.

> | And copyrighting GCL under the FSF seems like a reasonable idea, but
> | without Camm, GCL would be fairly well static, I think.
>
> well those are separate issues, I would think.  Having FSF owns
> copyright relieves from some legal paperwork and burdens.  That is
> largely orthogonal to who actually does the development work.

Yes, this is orthogonal, and not too pressing.  But I do wonder if the
copyright holder has final say over issues such as licensing, which
might not be the case now.

Take care,

>
> -- Gaby
>
>
>
>

-- 
Camm Maguire                                        address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah