Re: GPLv3 code in monotone

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Stephen Leake
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Zack Weinberg <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> 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.

I'm okay with that.

> 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.

I watched the v3 development process closely and came away convinced
that v3 does *not* provide legal protections beyond what v2 already
has, that are of practical use except to a limited set of projects
(basically those that have to worry about vendor lockdown).
Therefore, the only benefit to the switch would be expanding license
compatibility, and right now, a switch would actually make that worse.

(Please do not waste time trying to persuade me that v3 provides legal
benefits beyond v2 that are of practical use to monotone: I have made
up my mind on the topic.)

> Actual licenses for packages we currently use (from
> INSTALL_windows_native.text):

That's not the interesting set.  The interesting set is of packages
that might want to reuse (parts of) our code in the future.

zw

_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel