[Savannah-register-public] [task #14945] Submission of Extendable Read-Only File System

[Xiang Gao]

Follow-up Comment #35, task #14945 (project administration):

Hi Karl,
> a license "compatible with the GNU GPL" (the phrase on both pages) means any
version of GNU GPL, present and future (that's implied in the GPL text
itself). That is why or-any-later-version is required. That is why the only
listed licenses are indeed compatible with GPLv3+. 
> In general, the idea of Savannah is to host software that can be used as
part of the GNU Project, because the FSF sponsors/owns Savannah. And that
means being compatible with GPLv3+. 
It is true that we could explicitly state that GPLv3+ compatibility is
required; I'll look into that. But it is already implicit in the words there,
and, regardless of how good we are at writing explanations, it has always been
the policy. 

OK, if that is implied in the GPL text itself, I have no idea how the Linux
kernel marked the kernel as GPLv2-only, its text is shown at

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0?h=v4.17

compared to
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

I don't have enough knowledge to get the point.

BTW I also searched a lwn text,
https://lwn.net/Articles/176670/

Actually I can only select the distribute license of the part of our code, of
course not all the Linux kernel, and in my point of view, GPL-v2 is also good
for us, but I can also accept GPL-v2+ licenses. 

Anyway, if "Savannah requires GPLv3+ compatibility" is so important, 
GPLv2 is not so freedom as a _free software_, I have to find an alternative
hosting. 

Thanks,
Gao Xiang


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14945>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/