Considering relicensing to GPLv3+

Michael Catanzaro <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.gnome.apps.epiphany
Organization GNOME
Message-ID <1413665013.32749.8.camel@lumiose-city>
Hi all,

You may have noticed that View Source is broken in Epiphany 3.14, after
this functionality was removed from WebKit. For 3.14.2, we have a
workaround in place that will open the page's source in your default
text editor, but this is pretty crummy. We've been discussing a solution
in [1] involving the Rainbow syntax highlighting library. Rainbow uses
the Apache 2.0 license, which is incompatible with GPLv2 but is
compatible with GPLv3, so to use it we need to upgrade our project
license from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+. We don't have to adjust the license on
our source files (though that would be the least-confusing approach and
that's what the FSF would want us to do) and we don't need permission
from anybody, since all the source files are licensed GPLv2+ already,
but the overall project license (in the about dialog and COPYING file)
would have to change to GPLv3+.

Only a few GNOME programs like Terminal and Builder are using GPLv3+, so
I wanted to see if there were any objections to this change.

[1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=738475

_______________________________________________
epiphany-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 473 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAABAgAGBQJUQtD1AAoJEH9xtkJ5NjKYoGkH/0/Is0IEPrAWuKVVj5tgxUx7
vS7HrqdTqdVHxt5EUXn+jPex1Y8qboWmcljcbjsVqBWXUjg4GdihUCSTHxN2zLd3
7HHL6r8tCtElfvau/5XWkAR6lcIu+JfYJ499qTaSa7jeUKTWiFsoCaNFSd9ytDhC
RBzVF188gSOicl7DuPFijCqSlRiBdVbLFnji6VWJSPRJ7DO9LHyS4wYlkvRVnmPG
xG/Jun2xc4+ZV+Fz9B3qsSI78xF6Ex0uzbKoLeorm3Z2vfutG00usY80Ih9S9Ppw
lSdRUSaFR320ICWod8e3dwI8yv1IewOfHDXV3JjVshgLV8B398ZrSLn/+8hQZoE=
=RX4M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.