[Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Donald Winiecki <address@hidden> writes:

| A change to the most recent licenses will make things consistent with
| FSF's current way of thinking about open source, though more
| aggressive developers seem to think it's restrictive.  Given the
| typical users and usual applications of GCL, this may not be an issue.

It is my opinion that GPLv3 goes a bit too far -- but I would dispute
the label "aggressive developer" :-) 

| But I'm not sure -- if GCL is licensed under GPL3, does that mean that
| anything built with or under it will also have to be licensed under
| GPL3?  (I guess that's why Camm is querying the Axiom list.)

Indeed.  That does have some implication for systems like the AXIOM family.
If I understand correctly, it will be a move from LGPL to GPLv3?

| And copyrighting GCL under the FSF seems like a reasonable idea, but
| without Camm, GCL would be fairly well static, I think.

well those are separate issues, I would think.  Having FSF owns
copyright relieves from some legal paperwork and burdens.  That is
largely orthogonal to who actually does the development work.

-- Gaby