On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Michael Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > 2008/12/4 Chris Meller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Michael Harris wrote: > >> > >> Yes, and it would be great to have somewhere shared to put that stuff. > >> I might provide it myself if I get a chance. But there _is_ going to > >> be stuff we won't host in -extras, even if we allow GPLv3, so it's not > >> disallowing GPLv3 that's causing these problems. > > > > Such as? I can't think of a single thing that we'd not want to include. > Even > > if there were, that has nothing to do with splitting ASL-compatible hairs > on > > licensing. > > Such as other non-ASL-compatible licenses. > > > Also as I said on IRC, providing a separate location to house only GPL > > content is a stupid idea all the way around. It's an incredibly arbitrary > > line drawn more than doubling the management complexity. Not only are > there > > now two "extras" repos, but we have to keep up with which plugins are in > > which repo, enforcing the rules for each, and handle moving plugins > between > > the two. > > > > One repo, looser rules. There's no reason to exclude GPL, save a > "spiritual" > > one. > > I actually didn't suggest that the "other place" be managed by the > community. That still doesn't make it less confusing or annoying to users looking for plugins. 99% of them don't care in the slightest how it's licensed, they just want a convenient go-to location to find them. Don't screw the users because we're holier than the GPL. We want Extras to be the de facto location for Habari plugins. Excluding the GPL shoots that goal in the foot and only invites frustration and confusion. > > > >> I'm not saying anything about not liking GPL. I'm not talking about > >> legal or technical. I'm talking about able to be comprehended at a > >> glance. > > > > I still think it's very clear. If it's in Extras, it's ASL-compatible. > What > > more do you need to know? > > > > It's up to the person putting it in Extras to determine if it's GPL or > any > > other ASL-compatible license (or an incompatible license), just as if we > > only included ASL-licensed content. There shouldn't be any additional > > "overhead", and we've eliminated the "why not GPL?" question. > > GPLv2 stuff isn't ASL compatible, right ? So I can't just take a GPLv2 > theme, port it, and put it in -extras. If GPLv3 is ASL compatible, I > can change the theme and re-license it using GPLv3, then put it in > -extras. > Yes, you can. Read my references. From the NOTICE file that, in order to use the GPL, you must include in every package: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. I don't know how you can make it much more straightforward. And from what perspective are you looking at this? From a user perspective, who cares? If anything, it's in Extras and is ASL-compatible so you're happy because it can't be too bad. From the developer perspective it's GPL so you're still good. > This is exactly what I mean. That doesn't seem particularly > straightforward to me, and it certainly doesn't pass the "at a glance" > test. Seems pretty straightforward to me. It's not backwards compatible, but you're free to upgrade at any time with or without a reason. I can pretend version 2 never existed and use version 3 for everything... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
