On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 18:03 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote: > A majority vote of the current board members is required for the > following matter. > > Proposal: > > The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is > for > the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later. > > [ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ > [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: > _________________________________________________ > ___ > [ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at this > time
a. I agree with Ted that we should evaluate moving to GPLv3+ in the future. > Background: > > When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it > be > covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so > version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate > spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, > it > was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements > from > the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing > them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard > Inkscape licensing. > > Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other > projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally > these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not > always. > > Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over > exactly > what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the > added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as > "GPL > v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more > precise > at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to > individual > file boilerplates. > > An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about > what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant > from > that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance > through > regular development efforts. > > Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. > Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as > the > website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming > that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order > for > them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape > will > be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not > dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and > any > adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left > to > their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them. > > > Inkscape Board <inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application > Performance > APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month > Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now > Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 > _______________________________________________ > Inkscape-board mailing list > Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
