Hi Greg, > Gregory Casamento <greg.casamento <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Hey Stefan, > On Tuesday, June 3, 2014, Stefan Bidi <stefanbidi <at> gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes, from what I hear one of them is a large search engine company based in > mountainview. And it's not the first one I've heard of. I can unequivocally state this is not the case. I'm not sure what information you have, but i'm responsible for open source licensing policy there, and have been for the past 8 years. We do not specifically avoid GNUstep at all, for licensing, or any reason. In fact, GNUStep has been supported, along with thousands of other open source projects, through programs like GSOC. >> Would these companies and/or contributors be more inclined to >> contribute to the project if portions of it were GPLv2 over GPLv3? > Yes because there is apparently a no gplv3 policy in some conpanys > due to gplv3 patent restrictions. We have no such policy. In general, the only licenses we ban across the board are those that are not actually open source (IE say, GPLv2 + some random restrictive clause) and thus incompatible with most actual open source licenses. Things like GPLv3 are fine to use, we just make people aware of what we will require of them if they use it (IE installation information requirements, etc), and they make a business decision whether they want to use it for their case. HTH, Dan _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
