Re: Moving to GPLv3 - the practical side of it
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
Two things I don't understand about this:
1. Why aren't we (technically) allowed to share (distribute) source
code files? I can understand not being allowed to distribute
executable code whose source is partially GPLv3, but I don't
understand this restriction for source files.
Neither do I. However, the FSF has always maintained that the
*intention* to link two files makes them parts of the same work, and
thus they must be license-compatible because of the viral clause, or
you can't distribute them under the GPL. Cf. their complaint against
Aladdin Ghostscript containing a Makefile stanza that allowed users to
link GNU readline.
2. What does being incorporated have to do with it?
If we were incorporated, *sharing* of versions among developers would
not be "distribution" and the versions of the GPL used in different
files wouldn't matter.
Surely most GPL'ed projects are *not* incorporated.
Most GPLed projects presumably have a clearer pedigree than XEmacs
does, and all their code is license-compatible with itself.
Have I mentioned recently that I dislike copyleft, almost as much as I
like XEmacs? ;-)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta