[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Savannah-hackers] Re: Submission of Z80 assembler - savannah.nongnu.org
From: |
B. Wijnen |
Subject: |
[Savannah-hackers] Re: Submission of Z80 assembler - savannah.nongnu.org |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:03:47 +0100 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Licensing under the "GNU GPL v2 only" is problematic.
Would you please agree to license under the "GNU GPL v2 or later"?
I understand your position, however I have a problem with
it:
If for any reason GPL v3 or later would limit the freedoms
of the
end-user, most likely because it becomes like the BSD
license, I do not
want to use it for my program.
I trust the FSF as it is now very much, and I am sure the
GPL will not
be like this anytime soon. But I don't know what will
happen in the
(far) future. I think it is a bad idea to make a habit of
licensing
code with this clause, because removing it when the FSF
would become
less trustworthy may be forgotten. And anyway, all
program versions
until the removal would fall under the new license.
These two things (not wanting to sign a blank contract, to
be filled in
later, but wanting to allow good license changes to be
made without the
need of contacting all developers) are a big dilemma for
me. I have
read the GPL v2, and I think the good side of things
(having the changes
in the license for the code when v3 comes out) will not be
large
(because v2 is exactly what I want, so if v3 is good, it
will at least
be like it). However, the potential bad side of things
(licensing BSD
style) is very large. For that reason, I would like to
license it as
version 2 only.
I would be happy to add a clause to allow version 3 or
later, on the
condition that certain parts of the license are not
changed in the newer
version (or better, that certain rights are still (not)
given). Let me
know if that would be acceptable, in that case I will
write such a
clause and send it to you for approval. If there is such
a clause which
is suggested by the FSF, then I would like to hear about
this, so I can
see if it is acceptable for me.
Thank you,
Bas Wijnen
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:28:32PM +0100, Mathieu Roy
wrote:
Hi,
I'm evaluating the project you submitted for approval in Savannah.
address@hidden said:
> A package was submitted to savannah.nongnu.org
> This mail was sent to address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> Bas Wijnen <address@hidden> described the package as follows:
> License: gpl
> Other License: The license is GPL version 2, not later.
Licensing under the "GNU GPL v2 only" is problematic.
Would you please agree to license under the "GNU GPL v2 or later"?
The reason for this is that when we publish GPL v3, it will be
important for all GPL-covered programs to advance to GPL v3. If you
don't put this in the files now, the only way to port your program to
GPL v3 would be to ask each and every copyright holder, and that may
be very difficult.
We can explain the issue in more detail if you wish. If you have
concerns about "GNU GPL v2 or later", We'd be happy to address them
too.
Please register your project once more with the changes
mentioned above.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE/pY4GFShl+2J8z5URAvGmAKCwvwUVEA6sjdzF3kP6ROhPSjQYDwCffT+s
7pmiItoqavfA7+sEoc+r5PQ=
=Goh5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----