Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team

[Sigurd Nes]

Benoit Hamet wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry to jump into this, but :
> 
> Sigurd Nes a écrit :
>>> From: Dave Hall address@hidden
>>> Sent: 2008-03-04 15:02:00 CET
>>> To: address@hidden
>>> Subject: Re: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 14:30 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
>>>>> From: Dave Hall address@hidden
>>>>> Sent: 2008-03-04 13:39:41 CET
>>>>> To: address@hidden
>>>>> Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 10:56 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
>>>>>> I'm happy with the team - it's just that sometimes I could wish I had
>>>>>> a vote in decision processes rather than being told afterwards that
>>>>>> some policy
>>>>>> has changed.
>>>>> I am not sure which policies you are referring to.  The policies of the
>>>>> project and release goals for 0.9.18 haven't really changed for a long
>>>>> time.  
>>>> Well - how about licensing GPLv2 vs. GPLv3. (or what about AGPL?)
>>> GPLv3 is a requirement of being a GNU package and was discussed here
>>> back in July last year.  The AGPL is a great license for something like
>>> phpgw, but without rewriting large chunks of code we can't use it.
>> Could we have things like that in the Developers Guide ?
> I'm not sure to understand what you mean here ... "things like that" is
> for the fact that being a GNU package has some well known constraints
> (and lot's advantages IMHO), or that if you want to put some pieces of
> code under another Licence than the official one it should be GPLv3
> Compliant ? Or another thing ?
>  

I'm thinking on rules for how to play in general.

For the xGPL - as I understand it  - the <quote>either version 2 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version</quote> is GPLv3 compliant.

-Also (still my perception): The rationale behind LGPL, is that where there are
 alternative libraries available for the proprietary software - it is desirable
that it is the GNU version that is preferred, and LGPL will allow the
proprietary software to link to it.
However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, releasing it
under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs is preferred to promote the
GNU variant.

As I understand it - one can use all variants of the xGPL - not having to choose
only one.

My personal opinion is that the GPL could be replaced with AGPL wherever it is
used - while LGPL has to stay as is (if appropriate for linking with other 
parties).

Regards

Sigurd