Well, as the jump source (just checked 1.2 from vivid solutions website) states the infamous * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 * of the License, or (at your option) any later version. paragraph.. we are free to choose ... but again, this is a one way street.
While I see personally no reason against it.. here are some more pros - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html essentially the open source is better protected with GPL3, but there might be companies that feel attacked by the more strict rules and keep them from commiting. Here is as I see it. If someone feels threatened by the GPL then probably only because this someone does mainly want to take advantage of GPL'd software without committing own resources. A company or person opposing version 3 of GPL should be asked: Are you planning to use legal weaknesses of GPL2 to workaround the idea of open and free software? On the other hand: I also see projects like the linux kernel deliberately staying with GPL2 ... .. just some thoughts, ede -- > Ede, > > Your are absolutely correct. I forgot about the powerful viral quality > of the GPL. I'm not sure how that viral quality affects being able to > move to different versions of the GPL though. This is an intersting > legal question. > > SS > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:25 AM, <edgar.sol...@web.de> wrote: > >> Hi Landon :) >> >>> I think you may have understood my previous statement. >>> >>> I'm not saying that others contributions are not also under GPL >>> version 2. I'm saying that we can't choose another license, even a >>> later version of the GPL, because the contributors didn't give us that >>> right explicitly. >>> >>> >> not any, but a later version of the GPL2 ... >> >> >>> When I contribute to OpenJUMP I agree to release my code under the >>> project's current license (GPL V2) and not under any other license or >>> license version. >>> >>> >> actually you don't agree ... it is more that your work (patch, plugin or >> else) is derived from the GPL'd (open)jump codebase and therefore must >> be GPL'd. >> for example: >> You write a new plugin and interface a plugin interface class or extend >> an existing plugin class. Et voila, your work is derived from GPL'd code >> and therefore must be published under GPL as well. >> >> >>> That is why other projects (like Geotools) require programmers to >>> transfer copyright to contributions. The programmer that control's the >>> copyright can relicnese the code as he pleases. >>> >>> >> makes sense. But I can imagine at least one scenario where I wouldn't >> give my copyrights away. >> (Just a note: In german law copyrights can't be given away. Only >> exploitation rights and the others ..) >> ok the scenario: >> A company develops a software in a commercial fork and a GPL'd fork.. >> Third parties have to give their copyrights away, therefor the changes >> get integrated in the commercial version and later on in the GPL'd. >> But some of these changes never come to the GPL'd version and even >> worse. Someday the company discontinues their efforts in th GPL'd fork >> and close the source completely. >> >> >>> I suppose there may be some gray area when someone contributes a patch >>> to an existing JUMP class or interface, since Vivid's statement in the >>> header file allows transfer to a later GPL version. >>> >>> >> Nothing gray at all :) ... this is plain black and is dealt with in the >> GPL. >> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions >> >> regards ede >> -- >> >>> SS >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:30 AM, <edgar.sol...@web.de> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> I also don't think the permission from just Vivid Solutions is >>>>> sufficient. There have been a lot of other people contributing code to >>>>> OJ. Our project doesn't require contributors to transfer copyright or >>>>> the authority to relicense. That means we'd really need to contact all >>>>> of our past contributors for permission to change the license. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> This is not true. Because the contributions were for a GPL'd codebase >>>> and are derived (subclassing, interfacing) from it, they are >>>> automatically GPL2. Isn't it amazing how virulent this license works :). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I know people have reacted coldly to the idea of asking for copyright >>>>> on contributions before, but this very issue is one reason to do it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Again not necessary as the project is already GPL. Of course has every >>>> author the right to do whatever with his/her own code in parallel, but >>>> this leads away from the topic. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Still, GPL V2 has worked fine for us, so I don't think this is a burning >>>>> issue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In short there is an overview on >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3 >>>> >>>> I personally favour GPL3, because it advocates free and open software >>>> more efficiently. But thats just my point of view. >>>> >>>> Regards Ede >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>>> SS >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Stefan Steiniger <sst...@geo.uzh.ch> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hei, >>>>>> >>>>>> @Ede: thanks for the comment: >>>>>> >>>>>> so the VividSolution note says: >>>>>> >>>>>> * 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> so, we could switch to GPL V3, but if Ede is right... there really need >>>>>> to be some "big advantages" for switching. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mhm.. I also just checked. GPL code can not be used on LGPL code, if I >>>>>> understand correctly: >>>>>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SwitchToLGPL >>>>>> but there is also: >>>>>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility >>>>>> which says there is no way back from GPL/LGP v3 to v2... >>>>>> >>>>>> stefan >>>>>> >>>>>> edgar.sol...@web.de wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> True, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "or later versions of the GPL X.X" is the backdoor for newer GPL >>>>>>> licences with more up to date legal definitions and regulations in the >>>>>>> old GPL. But ... once licensed eg. 3.0 , there is no way back anymore >>>>>>> ... without asking all copyright holders (code contributors). This >>>>>>> becomes especially tricky for new code contributions that are >>>>>>> automatically GPL3. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the question is if the changes in the new welcome by the community. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards ede >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hei short answer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the current license contains the text "or later versions of the GPL >>>>>>>> X.X" then we can switch to V3. I think. But I need to do a bit of >>>>>>>> reading on fsf.org pages and in the source code license annotations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> stefan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Julien made an interesting request that we relicenze OpenJUMP under >>>>>>>>> the GPL version 3. I wanted to discuss this request in a separate >>>>>>>>> thread, because I think it is a very important discussion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My first question would be: Do we have the authority to relicense >>>>>>>>> OpenJUMP? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would think this authority to relicense OpenJUMP would lie with >>>>>>>>> Vivid Solutions, and all of our contributors that maintain copyright >>>>>>>>> over there code. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I believe this means we can't relicense OpenJUMP, even if we wanted >>>>>>>>> to. This is one disadvantage of allowing contributors to keep the >>>>>>>>> copyright to their patches/improvements to OpenJUMP. If we could get >>>>>>>>> Vivid Solutions to agree to relicense the JUMP code in OJ, we'd still >>>>>>>>> have to get agreements from all of our pass contributors. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is going to be tough. :] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Comments? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Sunburned Surveyor >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
