On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 10:48 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > > hi Everyone, > > > > I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me > > to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2. > > > > I'm not really interested in inciting a flamewar on the topic or > > anything, but I'm wondering how people feel, in general about the > > licensing direction of the GNOME project. > > > > > > 1) Go freedom-warrior GPLv3 style and make the world a better place > > (potentially at the cost of our own relevance). > > > > > > 2) Be pragmatic GPLv2 style and make the world a better place > > (potentially at the cost of reduced end-user freedoms). > > > > > > One thing in particular I want to mention is that I asked about this > > topic a couple of years ago in relation to Gtk and was told at that time > > that we can't reasonably relicense Gtk 2.0 since the licence could > > almost be considered as being part of the API/ABI contract. > > > > We have 3.0 upon us now, so I guess we should make a choice one way or > > another. > > The current (unwritten, afaik) policy is (L)GPLv2+. > > It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not > sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the > FSF; that's a major issue, and, IMHO, this doesn't go well with our > philosophy of having our platform LGPL. > > (see http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq for the compatibility matrix)
Maybe it's a good idea to discuss this issue in detail with Bradley M. Kuhn at GUADEC who will give a talk about GNU licenses v3 http://guadec.org/index.php/guadec/2010/paper/view/127 Cheers, -- Juanjo Marin _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
