Hey all,
I am thinking of changing my license to GPLv3. The only forseeable problem would be if people have taken out the "or (at your option) any later version" from the standard GPLv2 text, thereby tying the code to only the GPLv2.
Does anyone know of any code in the pure-data or pd-gem CVS that is not compatible with the GPLv3?
.hc
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Hey all,
I am thinking of changing my license to GPLv3. The only forseeable problem would be if people have taken out the "or (at your option) any later version" from the standard GPLv2 text, thereby tying the code to only the GPLv2.
is there a reason for this switch? (apart from staying "current")
i haven't followed the discussion about GPLv3 in the last month, but last time i did it was _very_ controversial...
mfg.asdr IOhannes
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
is there a reason for this switch? (apart from staying "current")
i haven't followed the discussion about GPLv3 in the last month, but last time i did it was _very_ controversial...
It's not that controversial anymore as I see it. See http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/92214 for a quick overview in german language.
A practical issue to be aware of is, that GPLv3 is incompatible with "GPLv2 only", but it is compatible with "GPLv2 or later". As I see it, one result would be that as soon as one external in pd-extended becomes GPLv3, all of pd-extended becomes GPLv3 and no external, that is licensed under "GPLv2 only" can be included anymore.
Ciao
On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:14 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
is there a reason for this switch? (apart from staying "current")
i haven't followed the discussion about GPLv3 in the last month, but last time i did it was _very_ controversial...
It's not that controversial anymore as I see it. See http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/92214 for a quick overview in german language.
A practical issue to be aware of is, that GPLv3 is incompatible with "GPLv2 only", but it is compatible with "GPLv2 or later". As I see it, one result would be that as soon as one external in pd-extended becomes GPLv3, all of pd-extended becomes GPLv3 and no external, that is licensed under "GPLv2 only" can be included anymore.
I want to switch because I believe in the issues that the FSF is trying to address. Software patents cause us a lot of problems, think MP3, all of the video codecs, etc. Does anyone here object to the GPLv3?
Making the Pd-extended packages GPLv3 would not force any code licensed "GPLv2 or later" to change their license. It would allow some people to switch their license to GPLv3 and still have it distributed with Pd-extended. The only problem would be if people have licensed their code as _only_ GPLv2.
.hc
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is related to the telescope. -Edsger Dykstra
-
Frank Barknecht -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
IOhannes m zmoelnig