[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing

From: Donald Winiecki
Subject: [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:28:14 -0600

Given recent information posted by Camm, I don't see a special reason
to not move to LGPLv3, as that wouldn't encroach on users of
Axiom-family tools.

But that's just me and if there are good reasons to not move this way,
perhaps not assigning copyright to FSF would also be an appropriate
move to keep that organization from doing things the principals of GCL
would rather not be done.

And it's good to see that I can still say somewhat problematic things
without really trying -- aggressive or not...  !^0


On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Camm Maguire <address@hidden> wrote:
> Greetings!
> Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> writes:
>> 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?
> Please excuse my ambiguous wording.  The proposal is to license GCL
> under LGPLv3 (currently LGPLv2), and the documentation under the
> FDLv1.3.  The LGPL 'library' license is non-viral for apps such as
> axiom.
>> | 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.
> Yes, this is orthogonal, and not too pressing.  But I do wonder if the
> copyright holder has final say over issues such as licensing, which
> might not be the case now.
> Take care,
>> -- Gaby
> --
> Camm Maguire                                       address@hidden
> ==========================================================================
> "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]