Moving to GPLv3 - the practical side of it
kehoea at parhasard.net
Mon Mar 23 15:15:17 EDT 2009
Ar an tríú lá is fiche de mí Márta, scríobh Stephen J. Turnbull:
> Mats Lidell writes:
> > Now comes the practical side of it. If I apply that script the
> > patch will be rather big and it will at best only take care of the
> > files that clearly has a GPLv2 license and change that into
> > GPLv3. Would that be an acceptable way to go?
> No. We should clean up the existing code base first. A partly GPLv3
> code base is undistributable. Technically since we're not
> incorporated we can't even share it with each other, although the FSF
> is unlikely to get on our case for that.
> > - There seems to be quite a few files with no clear license. What
> > does that mean or imply for a move to GPLv3? Shall or must we
> > keep them as is or can they be move to GPLv3?
> They *must* have a GPLv3 compatible license. That includes public
> domain (not really a license), (new) BSD, etc, but *not* GPLv2,
If you’re releasing the entire body of work as GPLv3, individual pieces
copyrighted as GPLv2 or later, as they normally are, are compatible with
that. The reason we’ve been doing this licence dance has been that releasing
the entire body as work as ‘GPLv2 or later’ is forced to be at least GPLv3
if some GPLv3 code is included; the obligation normally does not work the
If you’ve talked to a lawyer about this, please correct me.
> Mozilla, etc. Many of these files are may be broken from the time
> that we got them from GNU, in which case we win by syncing to current
> GNU, most likely. (GNU had a pile of issues, not as many was we do,
> but it still held them up for a couple months.)
¿Dónde estará ahora mi sobrino Yoghurtu Nghe, que tuvo que huir
precipitadamente de la aldea por culpa de la escasez de rinocerontes?
More information about the XEmacs-Beta