On Sunday, February 26, 2012, Dave Plater wrote: > ...Rosegarden has been marked GPLv2 or later for as long as I've been > maintaining it for openSUSE but when I submitted 11.11.42 to factory the > legal department license check said it was plain GPLv2. I must point out > that GPLv2 only can open a whole can of worms because it isn't compatible > with GPLv3 and a few other open source licenses, a lot of packages are > upgrading to GPLv3 so you could suddenly find problems with packages such > as jack, lilypond is now GPLv3 but fortunately rosegarden doesn't build > against it.
I hate licenses with a passion, because no matter what you try to use them to accomplish, they always seem to fail in subtle ways while also burdening you with unexpected complications. This situation is a perfect example. There was a time when I cared a great deal, and felt really strongly that Rosegarden should stay with GPLv2. Now, I really don't care so much anymore, or even remember what the fuss was all about. I guess this really is something we should put to the developer community, so that anybody who has work involved in this gets a chance to voice any opinion they might have on the issue. Folks? Opinions? -- D. Michael McIntyre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
