Re: gplv3 files and updates

[Karl Berry]

    IMO we have no right to pressure them regarding the copyright of their code

Of course, the copyright on their code is up to them.
Equally, the copyright on our code is up to us.

    already enough suffering from the split into a BSD-license camp and
    a GPL-license camp, 

I know of basically no one using the original BSD license, and since
modified BSD and GPL are compatible, it's not much of an issue.  What's
much worse in practice are the vast numbers of incompatible licenses
which have been created -- PHP, LPPL, and OpenSSL come to mind for
starters.  (Which reminds me that Apache should be marked as compatible
now on license-list.html, yay for that. :)

    license better be GPLv2+ rather than GPLv3+.

Are you saying that gnulib be released under GPLv2+ indefinitely?  If
so, the other gnulib maintainers should have a say (I don't include
myself, since I hardly contribute anything much these days), and, most
importantly, rms should be asked.

The expectation is that all GNU projects will upgrade to GPLv3.  rms
already said that in some cases it may be a tactical decision not to
upgrade, or to delay upgrading.  But that's a decision that is,
ultimately, up to him.  (I doubt "because Snort won't like it" is going
to be an overwhelming reason to him.)

Anyway, does anyone know *why* Snort is GPLv2 only?  If not, the first
thing we should do is ask them.  Perhaps it is a non-issue, just like
other such cases have been.

Sigh.

karl