Oh, I just put that there for the bit about "WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY" :). I am satisfied with GPLv2 and have updated the license notice to reflect a change from GPLv3 to GPLv2 or later.
-Matt On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 09:33 -0400, Peter Dalgaard wrote: > On Apr 27, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > > > On 27/04/2010 8:32 AM, Matt Shotwell wrote: > >> Simon, > >> Thanks for reviewing it! All the modified files are under the GPL > >> version 2 (except the configure script). According to the GPLv2, I am > >> granted permission to modify and redistribute the code as long as I make > >> a notice in the files of their modification and the date (which I have > >> not done yet). As I understand (I'm not lawyer), the copyright is > >> necessary for, and does not alter the terms of the GPLv2. Is there > >> something specific you're thinking of that invalidates this? > >> > > > > I don't know what Simon noticed, but I saw that you had indicated a GPL v3 > > license on the web page. GPL2 is not compatible with GPL3, so that makes > > your contribution unusable by us. > > Yes, this is a bit messy, but some got sufficiently annoyed by the added > restrictions of GPL3 that they insist on keeping their contributions GPL2, so > adding GPL3-only stuff is off limits. > > I don't think we have a problem with merging user contributions that are > licensed "GPL2 or later". A copyright transfer gives some legal > clarification, but is only really required in case the R Foundation wants to > (dual-) relicense under a GPL incompatible license, or need to be able to > legally defend users' code against infringement. The former is highly > unlikely, and it would require major disentanglement in other areas anyway, > and I don't see contributions of this order of magnitude as a target of legal > dispute either. > > > > > Duncan Murdoch > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
