Older GPL version are still available in the repository, and also copied in the /tags branch
License was changed starting from 1.6.0 for the reasons mentioned in my previous post. After some thoughts, I don't really understand the issue: "open source" is actually different from "free software" philosophy as defined by the FSF and GPL license. I never was aware that open-source implied anything beside that the source code should be made available for anyone to USE it, but distribution is a different thing. There are actually many open-source license that are not compatible with GPL for this reason and I would have thought that GoogleCode was accepting them as well, as I guess a lot of hosted project use a similar license as the snes9x/MAME ones. I also find kinda disturbing that googlecode projects that do not publicly share code (GPL only mention that code can be made available on demand... which also implies that the author is still there to fulfill this demand...) are not concerned or reported, while more "open" projects like Genesis Plus GX are. Lastly, I didn"t see anything in GoogleCode TOS that prohibits the use of such license but if it is the case and that GoogleCode only allows GPL and "Free Software" distribution, I think this should be clarified somewhere (maybe I didn't have looked at the right place though) On 10 août, 19:39, scanff <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand both arguments here. Basically would creating a "branch" > of the prior GPL'd code be acceptable. I fully understand the reasons > why the license would specifically say non-commercial and still be > open source. > > Developers have put a lot of effect and time into improving the > original code. I guess they just don't want it to be ripped off by > someone who would sell it without providing any source, i.e. SNESoid > and numerous other emulators on android. Many developers work for the > fun and to contribute to the open source community, it's a kick in the > backside when they get ripped off and someone profits from their > work. It's easy to say just sue they for violating a license but who > has the money to do that, certainly not a single young developer. > > Maybe there's a better license to put this project under but so many > are GPL incompatible. > > Anyway that's my two cents. > > On Aug 8, 11:05 am, "J.D. T." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >http://code.google.com/p/genplus-gxisnow under the non commercial > > mame license. It should be removed as it's not longer in tune with > > open source philosophy. > > > The project was GNU GPL but upstream made the switch leaving > > downstream developers no choice but to relicense to in order to be > > able to reuse the code from newer versions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Project Hosting on Google Code" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting?hl=en.
