Re: GNUstep Licensing.... GPLv2.1+ for apps instead of GPLv3

[Gregory Casamento]

Hey Stefan,

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014, Stefan Bidi <stefanbidi@gmail.com> wrote:

Greg,
I've been staying away from the discussion for the most part because at the end of the day the question of licensing and hosting is one of opinion. 

However, you made one statement here that kind of made me skeptical. Please be more clear about the statement, "since it is impacting us." How is it impacting us at this moment? Are companies and other possible contributors shying away from the project due to the license? 

Yes, from what I hear one of them is a large search engine company based in mountainview.   And it's not the first one I've heard of. 

Would these companies and/or contributors be more inclined to contribute to the project if portions of it were GPLv2 over GPLv3? 

Yes because there is apparently a no gplv3 policy in some conpanys due to gplv3 patent restrictions. 

Do they have a history our contributing to projects under GPLv2 over v3? Have these contributors submitted any patches to GPL projects?

Yes.  

The reason I all these questions is because I do not see why a company or contributor would be so fervently again the GPLv3 but not v2.  

See again regarding patent restrictions in gplv3 

If it is am entity that has goaltending contributed to an educational license, such as BSD or MIT, be more inclined to contribute to a project licensed in such a manner? If so, relicensing to GPLv2 gains us nothing as the licensing objections would be still be present.

Gplv3 seems also to be hated by many developers including many of our own. 

This particular decision does not affect me any as my major contribution, CoreBase, is already LGPLv2.1.

Over the decade that I've been involved with this project, beginning as a user and now as a contributor, I've read arguments about how a trivial solution, such as this one, would increase contribution. 

No one is saying any one thing is a panacea.There are a myriad of issues with gnustep only one of which is licensing. 

Also, I disagree that licensing is minor. Licensing affects how the software can be used.  So I would say it's very important. 

Other issues with gnustep are that there are many fundamental things which currently don't work properly.  Printing being one of them.  Our default look is unattractive, outdated and generally gives a poor impression, we do not do a good job of inviting change and encouraging contribution. We do not promote ourselves very well.  The list continues.  

Yet, the number of active project contributors have remained the same. I understand the need trying new things, but contributions were not reduced when the tools were moved to v3. It could even be argued that the contributor pool has increased since that move. I know of many who joined the project after the license change.

Coincidence does not indicate correlation. I doubt the license change had anything to do with new contributors. In fact I have seen a decrease.   Many people who were once familiar have left or don't contribute as much.  

Anyway, I just wanted to come in.

Thanks  

Stefan

GC  

-- 
Gregory Casamento
Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant
yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa
(240)274-9630 (Cell)
http://www.gnustep.org
http://heronsperch.blogspot.com