On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi)<[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why the move to GPLv3. I am not sure how many in the community see this > as a problem, but we do. > As a policy many don't use GPLv3 software because its not viewed as > industry friendly. > > I don't want to get into the discussion of whether GPLv3 is or is not > industry friendly. > > Moreover, if you plan on Upstart being truly widely used and a true > replacement for SysV Init, it should match the Linux Kernel Licensing > whatever that might be. So that it really is part of the base core Linux > infrastructure that it is convenient for everyone to use together. > > I notice that Fedora, Redhat and quite a few other distros also package > upstart as part of their distros and many of these distros as use by the > industry. > > The core set of components have so far been GPLv2.
+1 I had some feeling the last weeks that things where starting to move in the right direction again but really not only do I need to give the copyright to the project I also lose the right to use the software as I like and who knows that the license will be next and what code will be used for. Did I miss some discussion somewhere? I just don't believe this! Thanks for the fixes in 0.5.1 and unless something changes I really don't see how I can even try to contribute ATH? Keesj -- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
