phpgroupware-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [phpGroupWare coordinators] [phpGroupWare-developers] Re: Who wants


From: Sigurd Nes
Subject: RE: [phpGroupWare coordinators] [phpGroupWare-developers] Re: Who wants to play?
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:17:41 +0100 (MET)

> From: Maât address@hidden
> Sent: 2009-11-09 12:49:23 CET
> To: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare coordinators] [phpGroupWare-developers] Re: Who 
> wants      to play?
> 
> Sigurd Nes wrote:
> > Maât wrote:
> >   
> >>
> >> i think we can create a per coder sub-repository so that you can publish
> >> your code
> >>
> >> people will have the choice to checkout from your base or from default
> >> base, compare codes and work on both
> >>
> >> then we can step by step merge features from your base to default and
> >> have by the end both a clean code and a clean changelog for default base :)
> >>
> >> that will allow everyone to go on without deadlock :)
> >>
> >> Okay for that ?
> >>     
> > I suppose so - that leaves only the license issue
> 
> Okay so : the per coder structure is now ready and follows the
> core/module base svn architecture
> 
> so for you sigurd the "core" place is there (and empty well i created
> just the trunk/tags/branches level) :
> 
> svn+ssh://address@hidden/phpgroupware/people/sigurdne/core
> 
> and i also added an empty module repository for property in your tree
> which is there :
> 
> svn+ssh://address@hidden/phpgroupware/people/sigurdne/modules/property
> 
> you have also the trunk/tags/branches level created so that it's useable
> just out of the box :)
> 
> for the remaining license issue i don't understand why there is a
> problem with GPL v3
> 
> can someone explain please ?
> 

It seems to work :)

The problem with GPLv3 is that it is not compatible with GPLv2 - and there is 
code in the system that is GPLv2-only.
It is normal to specify " either version 2 of the License, or  (at your option) 
any later version" - but there is code where the "option" is left out.

Here is why we can stay on GPLv2 for the current trunk:
(GPLv3 is aimed to address hardware issues)

http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html

Don't get me wrong: I am all for moving to GPLv3 on the next framework.

Benoit: Have you had the time to asses the GPLv2 vs GPLv3 ?


Regards

Sigurd

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]