Donald Winiecki <dwinie...@boisestate.edu> writes: | A change to the most recent licenses will make things consistent with | FSF's current way of thinking about open source, though more | aggressive developers seem to think it's restrictive. Given the | typical users and usual applications of GCL, this may not be an issue.
It is my opinion that GPLv3 goes a bit too far -- but I would dispute the label "aggressive developer" :-) | But I'm not sure -- if GCL is licensed under GPL3, does that mean that | anything built with or under it will also have to be licensed under | GPL3? (I guess that's why Camm is querying the Axiom list.) Indeed. That does have some implication for systems like the AXIOM family. If I understand correctly, it will be a move from LGPL to GPLv3? | And copyrighting GCL under the FSF seems like a reasonable idea, but | without Camm, GCL would be fairly well static, I think. well those are separate issues, I would think. Having FSF owns copyright relieves from some legal paperwork and burdens. That is largely orthogonal to who actually does the development work. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Gcl-devel mailing list Gcl-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcl-devel
