On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:03:07PM -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
Votes:
Bryce Harrington a
Josh Andler a
Tavmjong Bah a
Jon A. Cruz
Ted Gould a
Krzysztof Kosiński a
Martin Owens b - Prefer transition to GPLv3+
Resolution:
The Inkscape Project should seek to ensure the main codebase is
redistributable under the GPL version 2 or later at this time.
> 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 <[email protected]>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> [email protected]
> 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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
