RE: Moving GNUstep applications to GPLv3

[Riccardo]

Hi,

On 2007-06-27 02:23:27 +0200 "Nicola Pero" 
<address@hidden> wrote:

> > If we decide to move to the new license, then my opinion on the best 
> > way 
> > for the project to proceed is to change the license of our 
> > applications 
> > (GWorkspace, Gorm, etc) within GNUstep itself to the GPLv3 license.  
> >  All 
> > of the libraries should remain LGPL.
>
> You probably mean that the software which is currently under GPLv2 
> will be
> moved to GPLv3, and software that is currently under LGPLv2 will be 
> moved to 
> LGPLv3.

Well, since the code we have inside GNUstep has a copyright assignment 
to the FSF and it has the "v2 or later" clause, do we have a choice at 
all? or any restriction with older code?

Currently  I don't feel strongly against it and I think there are good 
reasons to move forwards (so to avoid potential problems with other 
projects, but that may be not of too great concern for us).
Although rising a great flameware about licensing, a matter in which I 
am only a layman, is not my intention, I do remember I followed 
several discussions and remember some people felt the v3 inadequate or 
even counterporducing and it was better to stick with v2. Linus 
himself felt v2 was better until shortly when forks were menaced.

I didn't have a look at LGPLv3 though, since the discussions I 
followed originated from Kaffe.

Apart from obvious arguments like "to keep up with times" or  "to 
comply with advices by FSF" it would be nice if people could write 
reasons against or in favor of this license update, especially if 
there are points where the arguments touch GNUstep specifically. Hot 
points for v3 regard especially the use of code in connection with the 
internet, sharing and online usage, applicaiotn server providers, etc. 
Our WebObject clones might be interested?

Cheers,
  Riccardo