On 8/26/15, Antoine Musso <hashar+...@free.fr> wrote: > Le 23/08/2015 01:09, Brian Wolff a écrit : >> On 8/22/15, Tyler Romeo <tylerro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> For example, MediaWiki is intentionally GPLv2, not GPLv3. >>> >>> >>> MediaWiki is not intentionally GPLv2. It merely is v2 now and the >>> community >>> cannot come to a consensus on whether to change it, thus it remains in >>> its >>> current stagnant state. >> >> I would consider that intentional. The status quo is intentionally >> staying as it is, because there isn't agreement to change it. (I'll be >> honest though, I don't really remember what the result was last time >> the whole GPL version thing was discussed) >> >> Unintentional I would define as - everyone thinks its a good idea to >> switch, but nobody could be bothered to update the wiki page. > > To be fair, the license is GPLv2 or later. > > I am myself opposed to switch to GPLv3. Given the amount of code I own > in MediaWiki core, I think I am in a position to veto such a switch. > > But I am not a lawyer. > > -- > Antoine "hashar" Musso > >
[At the risk of getting off topic]. I think what is usually meant by switching to GPLv3, is to pick some arbitrary point in time to say all future commits are GPL3 only. Commits prior to that continue to be dual licensed (in essence). So really only people committing after the cut off point need to agree. But from a community politics perspective we need to all agree (Or at least a majority) [I too am not a fan of switching, although I mostly just don't care]. But I am also not a lawyer. -- bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
