GPL v2 only,please
dak at gnu.org
Wed Mar 28 17:33:57 EDT 2007
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> I'm very sorry. I strongly sympathize with the "I don' need no
> steenkin' GPLv3, gimme a GPLv2.01" position, but the reality is
> that XEmacs is a GNU Emacs derivative, most users want it to stay
> that way, and the FSF will likely enforce GPLv3 on Emacs pretty much
> as soon as it's published.
I have no reliable clue which will go first: Emacs 22 or GPLv3
(certainly hope for the former, since it is high time). If it is the
latter, it is to be expected that Emacs will be made the forerunner
for the latter. That would make the problems start right away:
synching XEmacs to some prerelease of Emacs 22 would likely import
some problems fixed in the final release, synching to Emacs 21.4 would
be a waste of lots of developments. Even if GPLv3 would come later
into Emacs' life, that would just postpone the problem. And licensing
problems don't tend to get easier by waiting.
>  At least until we see how the anti-patent and anti-DRM
> provisions play out both in court and in corporate contributions to
> open source.
You mean: their effect on corporate contributions. The way it looks,
I think the uptake will be positive from corporations: the apparently
corporatically attractive CPL and similar licenses are incompatible
with GPLv2 mostly because of GPLv3-like patent provisions.
As one example, Sun has expressed quite a bit of intentions about
releasing OpenSolaris under GPLv3 once it is out (taken with a big
grain of salt, but nevertheless). Which would actually be a setback
for GNU/Linux in some camps, and thus a quite interesting business
move, if they actually follow through.
Anyway, I get the impression that the main rationale for shooting the
messenger in this thread has shifted to "I don't like his face".
Well, I suppose I can live with that.
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
More information about the XEmacs-Beta