Re: GPLv3 code in monotone
Richard Levitte <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.version-control.monotone.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In message <[email protected]> on Fri, 20 May 2011 16:53:59 -0700, Zack Weinberg <[email protected]> said: zackw> On 2011-05-20 4:46 PM, Stephen Leake wrote: zackw> > GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out zackw> > for zackw> > almost 4 years. zackw> > zackw> > Can you elaborate? zackw> > zackw> > I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I zackw> > don't understand what you mean by "premature". zackw> zackw> Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body zackw> of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in zackw> particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us zackw> license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds zackw> restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2). zackw> zackw> It is my impression that the former body of code is much larger than zackw> the latter, and it is my opinion that we should not switch as long as zackw> that remains the case. This discussion is the exact reason that a move to GPLv3 (or GPLv3+) is premature. It shows that we need to have a good look at the concequences before making that move. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte [email protected] http://richard.levitte.org/ "Life is a tremendous celebration - and I'm invited!" -- from a friend's blog, translated from Swedish