On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Julien Seguinot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > the RFC2 document actually requires GPL >=2 license [1]. Is that OK with >> you? >> > > I might have misunderstood that part. Is it OK to have add-ons under GPL 3 > or should they actually use GPL 2 with the "or later" statement? It says " that the code will be released under the GPL >=2 license." So you are right that it is not 100% clear and it could be interpreted as any of v2 or v3. However, it says "the GPL >=2 license" not "a GPL license =>2". Moreover, "GPL >=2 license" is a formulation derived from what is in the source code, i.e. "This program is free software under the GNU General Public License (>=v2)." [2] This is understood as GPL 2, GPL 3 and any later version. One of the practical reasons for keeping GPL >=2 for addon module is that by having some addons GPL 3 or >=3, Linux distributions packaging GRASS GIS with addons would have to use GRASS GIS under GPL 3 which may require review or changes of GRASS GIS dependencies or things which depend on GRASS GIS. So they should use GPL 2 with the "or later" statement. I hope this clarifies it. Vaclav [1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/2_LegalAspectsOfCodeContributions [2] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/Submitting/C
_______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
