>>>> "Mats" == Mats Lidell
<matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>> Stephen wrote:
Stephen> The latest
version is also GPLv3, unless I'm mistaken. We
Stephen> can't distribute it until we relicense.
OOPS!
Stephen> If somebody wants to get working on that, be my
Stephen> Stephen> guest. Basically we need to put
Stephen> GPLv3-or-later notices in all the files that
Stephen> currently have Stephen> "standard" GPLv2-or-later
Stephen> notices, and get a list of files that (a) don't
Stephen> have a notice, (b) have GPLv2-only notices, (c)
Stephen> have some other kind of Stephen> notice, and decide
Stephen> what to do about each type (a), Stephen> (b), and
Stephen> (c).
I fear there are some questions to sort out before digging into this
;-)
Right I would like to clarifying this as well and I will add some
ignorants questions.
- auctex is still released under under v2 (or later): do I
understand correctly, even if the auctex would be willing to
release reftex under the v2 they could not. Your reftex pkg is
"somehow" different from the old still, we could under now
circumstances release it under v2 or later. The GPL is so
infectious and global?
- Do we really have to relicense all packages at the same time?
(Which means we can't do a release until they are all fixed in
CVS? Nothing more, nothing less.)
Since the XEmacs packages are distributed together in some sense
the GPLv3 really means it is an all or nothing thing? That each
package in some other sense is a package on its own doesn't
matter?
- There is no problem with us relicensing GPLv2 stuff code to
GPLv3 because that right is granted by GPLv2. Right?
- Some packages are already GPLv3 upstream. Would syncing as part
of this task be worth while? (I guess it would best to decided
this on a per package basis since some syncs might be very time
consuming!?)
These are the same question who came into my mind.
Uwe
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta