Re: (L)GPLv3

[Juanjo Marin <juanjomarin96 yahoo es>]

On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:18 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010, à 10:48 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> > hi Everyone,
> > 
> > I recently received an email from a company in our ecosystem asking me
> > to relicense a smallish piece of code from GPLv3 to (L)GPLv2.
> > 
> > I'm not really interested in inciting a flamewar on the topic or
> > anything, but I'm wondering how people feel, in general about the
> > licensing direction of the GNOME project.
> > 
> > 
> >   1) Go freedom-warrior GPLv3 style and make the world a better place
> >      (potentially at the cost of our own relevance).
> > 
> > 
> >   2) Be pragmatic GPLv2 style and make the world a better place
> >      (potentially at the cost of reduced end-user freedoms).
> > 
> > 
> > One thing in particular I want to mention is that I asked about this
> > topic a couple of years ago in relation to Gtk and was told at that time
> > that we can't reasonably relicense Gtk 2.0 since the licence could
> > almost be considered as being part of the API/ABI contract.
> > 
> > We have 3.0 upon us now, so I guess we should make a choice one way or
> > another.
> 
> The current (unwritten, afaik) policy is (L)GPLv2+.
> 
> It's worth thinking really hard before moving to LGPLv3 (at least; not
> sure about GPLv3): LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2, according to the
> FSF; that's a major issue, and, IMHO, this doesn't go well with our
> philosophy of having our platform LGPL.
> 
> (see http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq for the compatibility matrix)


Maybe it's a good idea to discuss this issue in detail with Bradley M.
Kuhn at GUADEC who will give a talk about GNU licenses v3

 http://guadec.org/index.php/guadec/2010/paper/view/127

Cheers,

 
  -- Juanjo Marin