James Carlson wrote: > Bart Smaalders writes: >> James Carlson wrote: >> >>> We're setting ourselves up for yet more reasons (besides the usual >>> "resources" one) to deliver stale software if that issue and related >>> legal problems aren't solved. >>> >> By this argument we should stop shipping any new gnu software. >> What is your intent? > > Are all GNU projects moving to GPLv3? I'd thought that wasn't the > case. >
Over time, I expect most will do so. > In any event, I was asking about this one particular project, and not > about arbitrary other projects that might exist. This one notes that > it's going to deliver both the first and (effectively; unless > something else changes) last versions of that particular package, and > one based on an older version, which is unlike all the other "include > everything" projects that has come by for review. > > By your argument, do they all just get frozen in time? What is your > intent? I want emacs in the wos. I do not want to see it held hostage to legal's inability to come to terms w/ gplv3. > > If they all do get frozen, then that stinks, and it makes hash of the > whole rationale for trying to ship them in the first place. > The gplv3 mess will get resolved. I don't want to see this or other projects held up until it happens; I'd much rather have a slight old version of emacs for a while rather than none at all. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird."
