Re: GPLv3 code in monotone

Stephen Leake <[email protected]> writes:
> Zack Weinberg <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 2011-05-20 4:46 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:
>>> GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out for
>>> almost 4 years.
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate?
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I
>>> don't understand what you mean by "premature".
>>
>> Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body
>> of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in
>> particular, code under v2-only).  It would also make us
>> license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds
>> restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2).
>>
>> It is my impression that the former body of code is much larger than
>> the latter, and it is my opinion that we should not switch as long as
>> that remains the case.
>
> If everyone adopts this attitude, no one will ever switch to GPLv3. And
> we would not be using GPLv2+ now; we'd be stuck with GPLv1.

+1

> Since we have benefited so much from the Gnu packages and the FSF
> licenses, I think we have a duty to move to GPLv3, since it gives better
> support for software freedom.

+1

I recommend that the relicensing to GPLv2+ that Stephe approved apply to
monotone 1.0 but that the next published release of monotone migrate to
GPLv3+.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.