Hey A. Walton,
Relicensing from gpl2+ (supposed current nautilus) to lgpl2+ (current gtk+)
requires agreement of all copyright holders, and the software license is free
Relicensing from gpl3+ requires ecxactly the same process, and both are still
free software licenses.
Do you mean something in particular by "more difficult"?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 19, 2017 6:29 AM
UTC Time: May 19, 2017 4:29 AM
To: Ernestas Kulik <ernest...@gnome.org>
Gnome Release Team <release-t...@gnome.org>, nautilus-list
<nautilus-l...@gnome.org>, desktop-devel-list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Ernestas Kulik <ernest...@gnome.org> wrote:
> (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me)
> As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite complicated, I
> and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to
> The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and
> GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under its
> terms, so our options are quite limited here.
> The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the
> extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in turn
> disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is not
> meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like
> relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable.
> If there are no objections, we will make the switch in the following
> week, most likely.
My primary objection is not ideological, but practical - relicensing
Nautilus GPLv3+ means that it becomes more difficult to promote code
from Nautilus to Gtk+, which has happened a significant number of
times in the past and I expect it will continue some into the future.
Stacked with the other reasons (plugins, etc), it just doesn't seem
like a very good idea.
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
nautilus-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list mailing list