> I still haven't seen definitive written statement from anybody of > _how_ you do that (move from GPLv2 and later to GPLv3) if a project > has hundreds of copyright holders.
"With difficulty", I suspect. > That's why I would love to see something definitive from the FSF I don't think I'd trust something from the FSF; they appear to be somewhat out of touch with copyright reality. For example, I've seen it reported that they appears to believe their license can bind code not covered by it - the example I saw was an open-source project which had hooks to interface to something GPLed, which they ripped out because the FSF told them it meant the whole thing had to be GPLed. (They were probably right to do so, because I think they were in the USA, where winning court cases is usually determined by who has better funding, which in this case would have led to a dreadful precedent.) > It would be nice if we didn't have any GPLv3 projects inside of > gEDA/gaf for now (for all the reasons mentioned). If this is a > problem, please let us know why and maybe we can come to some sort of > compromise. Well, speaking as a user and hacker-on (at least if I ever pick that project up again) of PCB, if there is any GPLv3, I'm gone. I've read the GPLv3, and I cannot tell whether anything I'm contemplating, even something as simple as compiling and using the program, is permitted. That alone makes the license unsuitable for anything I'm going near. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
