[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing
From: |
Camm Maguire |
Subject: |
[Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:32:53 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) |
Greetings! I've received a thoughtful reply claiming that the LGPLv3
is more onerous than v2 in that it obligates all distributors to
provide physical media, and not simply provide electronic
distribution. I cannot find this text -- anyone know for sure?
Take care,
Donald Winiecki <address@hidden> writes:
> Given recent information posted by Camm, I don't see a special reason
> to not move to LGPLv3, as that wouldn't encroach on users of
> Axiom-family tools.
>
> But that's just me and if there are good reasons to not move this way,
> perhaps not assigning copyright to FSF would also be an appropriate
> move to keep that organization from doing things the principals of GCL
> would rather not be done.
>
> And it's good to see that I can still say somewhat problematic things
> without really trying -- aggressive or not... !^0
>
> _don
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Camm Maguire <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Greetings!
>>
>> Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Donald Winiecki <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>> | A change to the most recent licenses will make things consistent with
>>> | FSF's current way of thinking about open source, though more
>>> | aggressive developers seem to think it's restrictive. Given the
>>> | typical users and usual applications of GCL, this may not be an issue.
>>>
>>> It is my opinion that GPLv3 goes a bit too far -- but I would dispute
>>> the label "aggressive developer" :-)
>>>
>>> | But I'm not sure -- if GCL is licensed under GPL3, does that mean that
>>> | anything built with or under it will also have to be licensed under
>>> | GPL3? (I guess that's why Camm is querying the Axiom list.)
>>>
>>> Indeed. That does have some implication for systems like the AXIOM family.
>>> If I understand correctly, it will be a move from LGPL to GPLv3?
>>>
>>
>> Please excuse my ambiguous wording. The proposal is to license GCL
>> under LGPLv3 (currently LGPLv2), and the documentation under the
>> FDLv1.3. The LGPL 'library' license is non-viral for apps such as
>> axiom.
>>
>>> | And copyrighting GCL under the FSF seems like a reasonable idea, but
>>> | without Camm, GCL would be fairly well static, I think.
>>>
>>> well those are separate issues, I would think. Having FSF owns
>>> copyright relieves from some legal paperwork and burdens. That is
>>> largely orthogonal to who actually does the development work.
>>
>> Yes, this is orthogonal, and not too pressing. But I do wonder if the
>> copyright holder has final say over issues such as licensing, which
>> might not be the case now.
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>>>
>>> -- Gaby
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Camm Maguire address@hidden
>> ==========================================================================
>> "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
>>
>
>
>
>
--
Camm Maguire address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
- [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing,
Camm Maguire <=
- [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing, Donald Winiecki, 2010/11/04
- [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing, Camm Maguire, 2010/11/05
- [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing, Raymond Toy, 2010/11/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing, Matt Kaufmann, 2010/11/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing, Camm Maguire, 2010/11/08
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing, Matt Kaufmann, 2010/11/08
- [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing, Raymond Toy, 2010/11/09
- Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing, Camm Maguire, 2010/11/15