licensing issues with gpl3 due to the gpl2only limitation
Eric M. Hopper
hopper at omnifarious.org
Wed Oct 8 02:20:22 CDT 2008
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 22:53 +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Samstag 04 Oktober 2008 01:24:15 schrieb Matt Mackall:
> > Everyone who specifically licensed their code GPL2-only did so out of
> > concern that later FSF licenses would not be to their liking. Some of us
> > now feel fairly confirmed in this, frankly.
> > Similarly everyone who started off writing GPL3-only code did so knowing
> > that their code would be incompatible with all the existing software in
> > the former camp and decided that the GPLv3 was more important to them
> > than that compatibility.
> For example because they were concerned about weaknesses in GPLv2. Or
> like some of the improvements in the GPLv3.
> So it means, we are in camps, now... why?
> Am I your "enemy", because I like GPLv3+ and use it for most code I
> publish wherever I don't link against GPLv2-only programs (except
> where I write code which is intended to mostly be used as backend by
> existing projects)?
I feel very similarly to you on this. I don't really understand why
people don't like the GPLv3. It seems like in almost all ways a better
license than the GPLv2.
A word is nothing more or less than the series of historical
connotations given to it. That's HOW we derive meaning, and to claim
that there is an arbitrary meaning of words above and beyond the way
people use them is a blatant misunderstanding of the nature of language.
-- Anonymous blogger
-- Eric Hopper (hopper at omnifarious.org http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper)--
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 185 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20081008/b8fe4309/attachment.pgp
More information about the Mercurial-devel