[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone
From: |
Stephen Leake |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone |
Date: |
Sat, 21 May 2011 06:07:19 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (windows-nt) |
Zack Weinberg <address@hidden> writes:
> On 2011-05-20 4:46 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:
>> GPLv3 was heavily reviewed before it was released, and has been out for
>> almost 4 years.
>>
>> Can you elaborate?
>>
>> I'm sure there are good reasons not to bother going to GPLv3, but I
>> don't understand what you mean by "premature".
>
> Switching to GPL3 would make us license-incompatible with a large body
> of code (everything under a copyleft that isn't v3-compatible, in
> particular, code under v2-only). It would also make us
> license-compatible with a large body of code (anything that adds
> restrictions that are okay with v3 but not v2).
>
> It is my impression that the former body of code is much larger than
> the latter, and it is my opinion that we should not switch as long as
> that remains the case.
If everyone adopts this attitude, no one will ever switch to GPLv3. And
we would not be using GPLv2+ now; we'd be stuck with GPLv1.
Since we have benefited so much from the Gnu packages and the FSF
licenses, I think we have a duty to move to GPLv3, since it gives better
support for software freedom.
Free Software is a community effort; everyone has to do their part.
We only need to consider packages that we currently use, and those that
might be useful in the future for monotone. Using new packages seems a
remote possibility, since we are fairly mature.
So I think this deserves some more attention.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html gives a list of licenses
known to be compatible with GPL (3 is implied).
Actual licenses for packages we currently use (from
INSTALL_windows_native.text):
MinGW a varied collection. c:/MinGW/doc/runtime/DISCLAIMER says the
main runtime library is public domain. I'll assume GPLv3+, but
it could be a lot of work to prove that (same amount of work to
prove GPLv2+).
On Linux, the runtime is mostly Gnu packages, which are GPLv3+
compatible. So I'll assume GPLv3+ there as well.
Getting a precise library dependency list from Depends.exe or
ldd would be the next step to refine this.
Boost Boost Software License (http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt).
GPLv3+ compatible according to [1].
Lua "MIT license", which is an overloaded name according to [1].
http://www.lua.org/license.html is the same as the Boost
license; GPLv3+ compatible.
pcre University of Cambridge; similar to Boost; GPLv3+ compatible
botan /MinGW/include/botan.h says "Botan license".
http://botan.randombit.net/ says "BSD license".
http://botan.randombit.net/license.html gives a license. This
appears to be the "modified BSD license" mentioned on [1] (no
"advertising clause"). GPLv3+ compatible.
sqlite3 /MinGW/include/sqlite3.h says "The author disclaims copyright".
So it's public domain; GPLv3+ compatible.
libidn Gnu package; GPLv3+ compatible.
libiconv Gnu package; GPLv3+ compatible.
gettext Gnu package; GPLv3+ compatible.
libz /MinGW/include/zlib.h gives a license similar to Boost; GPLv3+
compatible
C++ runtime Gnu package; GPLv3+ compatible
So GPLv3+ is fine for the current set of packages.
What sort of package might we be using in the future?
--
-- Stephe
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, (continued)
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, Stephen Leake, 2011/05/20
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, Zack Weinberg, 2011/05/20
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, Hendrik Boom, 2011/05/20
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, Zack Weinberg, 2011/05/20
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, Hendrik Boom, 2011/05/21
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, Zack Weinberg, 2011/05/21
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, Richard Levitte, 2011/05/21
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone,
Stephen Leake <=
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, Ludovic Brenta, 2011/05/21
- Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone, Zack Weinberg, 2011/05/21