> Are these benchmark tools distributed? If not, there's no need to upgrade > the license. If they are, perhaps it makes sense to include them in the > TigerVNC project?
They're distributed via the VirtualGL CVS repository. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about upgrading the license. Wouldn't bringing in GPL v3 code obligate me to release the whole project under GPL v3? That is my understanding from reading several legal blogs on the subject. > If we don't know, why should it affect our choice of license? It's like > developing for an unknown user base. I just don't want to paint ourselves into a corner. I'm concerned about the fact that GPL v3 is not backward compatible with LGPL v2.1 and GPL v2. As I said before, I think I'd be more comfortable with this move if the lion's share of other VNC projects were also moving to GPL v3. > It is possible to downgrade if all authors says OK. But "all authors" in the case of VNC includes everyone that has worked on the project all the way back to AT&T Labs. It would be impossible to contact or obtain permission from all of those companies and individuals. The provisions of the license allow you to use a later version of the GPL without obtaining permission from the authors, but not an earlier version. > Note, however, that the TigerVNC license is currently "v2+". This means > that we have actually accepted GPLv3. A "migration" to v2 is rather about > removing the possibility of using the code under v2. > > If you/we do not like v3 at all, then we need to migrate to "v2 only", but > that is probably not doable. Right, so anyone can choose to upgrade to v3 if they want. I just don't like the idea of eliminating the possibility of using the code under v2. > Samba is such a project. gpl3.blogspot.com no longer tracks the migration > progress, but 5 months ago, the number of v3 projects was 3349. See > http://gpl3.blogspot.com/2008/10/gpl-project-watch-list-for-week-of-1024.html. > A conversion rate of something like 100 projects per week seems quite fast > to me. But I'm interested to know why they upgraded. I think a lot of projects are upgrading just because they drank RMS's Kool-Aid. If we do upgrade, I don't want that to be our reason. I've worked both sides of the fence, both proprietary and open source, and I feel that the FSF's position is increasingly hostile toward the co-existence of proprietary and OSS code. This belies the fact that commercial interests are really what are driving most of OSS development these days (TigerVNC being no exception), and often the only way for these commercial interests to monetize OSS projects is to add proprietary plug-ins to them (RealVNC being a prime case in point.) The GPL v3 embodies some of this anti-commercial sentiment -- for instance, it now explicitly spells out that you can't dynamically link a proprietary DLL with a GPL v3 application. I believe this is a draconian provision which needlessly limits the applicability of the program, causes many potential legal problems for developers working on proprietary O/S's such as Windows or OS X, and hinders potential adoption of the code, all in favor of trying to solve a problem which really isn't a problem at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
