On 9/23/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is the effective difference between releasing "under the terms of
> the GPLv2 or (at your option) any later version" and releasing it
> under GPLv3? Is it just this DRM business? Do we only care about that
GPLv2 and GPLv3 are actually incompatible. You might think
GPLvN should be compatible with GPLv(N-1) but that isnt the case here.
At the moment, I think SAGE cannot be released under GPLv3.
> on principle (i.e. we disagree with the FSF on this one) or is there
> something in SAGE that we specifically do not want these restrictions
> placed on for particular reasons?
>
> Or is it specifically excluded to distribute software derived from
> that with GPLv2 under GPLv3. But that would imply that GPLv3 does
> grant the user additional rights that v2 does not, i.e. it would be a
> *less* restrictive license at some point.
>
> My concern is, what happens if they release GPLv4 and they put some
> nuisance clause in that we specifically don't like, such as, you may
> use this software to further the aims of the FSF in total world
> domination and anihilation of its arch rival {insert name of favourite
> evil empire here}, even at the expense of keeping your derived
> propriety source code secret if that helps. Sure, the FSF is highly
> unlikely to add something like that, but how can you license a product
> against all future versions without knowing what additional rights
> those versions of the license may grant the user!?
>
> My suspicion is the FSF have done this to encourage the use of their
> new license. Nothing more, nothing less. They are just strategising to
> advance their own cause, leveraging their existing power.
Agreed.
>
> Bill.
>
> On 23 Sep, 21:08, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > William Stein wrote:
> >
> > > I think GMP is not going to change to LGPLv2 or greater; switching
> > > from LGPLv2 or greater to LGPLv3 is the one and only new "big feature"
> > > of GMP 4.2.2 (see the release notes).
> >
> > > Also -- much more importantly, the copyright owners of GMP
> > > are the Free Software Foundation -- not "the GMP developers",
> > > and their agenda is very clear.
> >
> > See:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> > Do I smell something?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Just out of curiosity, would anybody be angry if I were to remove the
> > > words "*Version 2*" from the above sentence in the COPYING file?
> > > Evidently nobody (but me) has ever actually submitted any code to Sage
> > > where
> > > they explicitly put "Version 2" in their copyright statement.
> > > I'm asking this mainly to see what our options are.
> >
> > I join David Joyner: GPLv2 or later
> > This will resolve all issues for library usage.
> >
> > Jaap
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
