savannah-hackers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Savannah-hackers] savannah.gnu.org: submission of scsh-utils


From: Anthony Carrico
Subject: Re: [Savannah-hackers] savannah.gnu.org: submission of scsh-utils
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:23:24 -0500 (EST)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Guillaume Morin wrote:

> Sorry, I am afraid I've been unclear. We do not plan to host GPLv2 only
> project for the reasons described in my previous mail.

Are you are referring to this statement, "the FSF doesn't want to accept
that license in its hosts because it would be compatible with GPL v2, but
wouldn't be compatible with the next version." I originally assumed this
must have been a mistake in your wording. Is GNU really contemplating a
GPL incompatible with V2?

> You either need 
> to license to dual license GPLv2 or later _and_ scsh license or to
> license under scsh license (if it is compatible with the GPL) to be
> host on Savannah.

To clarify a little more, can I just register my current software as a BSD
project in Savannah? Or must I actually remove GPL-V2 option from the
software's license?

With those specific questions out of the way, I want to ask a broader
question: Isn't it unreasonable to ban GPL-V2 only projects from Savannah?

The controversy about "is the GNU FDL actually free?" should be enough to
show that it is possible for GNU to mint a license that is, in some
people's opinions, non-free. I would be upset if I published a major work
under "GPL-V2 or later", and then GPL-V4 came along and allowed a third
party to bolt an "Invariant Section" to their valuable new version of my
work. Nobody can be sure that V3, 4 or 5 won't open this kind of loophole,
and given the FDL, it even seems likely. I agree that there are also
advantages to the GPL-V2 or later option, but why not let the producers
make this decision instead of forcing producers to change their work to
the GPL-V2 or later?

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions!

  -Tony Carrico
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8ViPFsYhrnH7Qa1wRAjBEAJwIG8wwQirj1gVgkpo2Swr4o6eilgCeL6lZ
SGWPzTrO3u3K7GgvXiJWHX4=
=A9j9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





reply via email to

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