On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Vaclav Petras <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > What are the implications if you want to incorporate code in an addon that is licensed under the GPL 3? Does it mean that one cannot upload those to the addon repository? > > Vaclav > > [1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/2_LegalAspectsOfCodeCo > ntributions > [2] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/Submitting/C >
_______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
