Re: [Duplicity-talk] GPL-3

[Joe MacDonald]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:08 AM, <address@hidden> wrote:

On 10.04.2011 14:56, Michael Terry wrote:
> Edgar, that's true if we were talking about relicensing to a
> completely difference license or to a lower version of GPL (as we did
> from 3 to 2).  But because all contributors have agreed to license as

which was taking back the license upgrade from before, actually continuing with the old licensed state, wasn't it?

> GPL 2+, we already have permission to use their code as GPL 3+.  So it
> would just be a change of headers.

you are absolutely right here. sorry, my mistake, i researched again and of course everybody can upgrade gpl'ed code to the next version (turning included gpl2 code from this point on to gpl3 as well)

reading (tivoization, patent protection, apache license compatibility)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
i also vote for this change.

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a distro vendor (my day job, not at this email address) a move to GPLv3 would mean I wouldn't be doing any further upgrades in our package and eventually it would get removed.  I've got absolutely no say in our policy on licenses but anything GPLv3 is specifically forbidden by our legal department (and explicitly stated as to be excluded by some of our customers).

RMS' comments aside, is there particular reasons of interest to the duplicity developers to move to v3 from v2+?  Just wondering.

-J.

 

sory for the noise and thanks mt,) ede/duply.net

>
> -mt
>
> On 10 April 2011 06:09,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Just to remember you all. Changing license is practically impossible, because we would need permission from all contributors up to the current state. On the other hand, gpl2 is always licensed to gpl2 _or_ any later license (users choice).
>>
>> ede/duply.net
>>
>> On 09.04.2011 21:21, Michael Terry wrote:
>>> Well, it's not like it's urgent that the license be changed either.  I
>>> just remembered that whole issue recently is all.
>>> -mt
>>>
>>> On 9 April 2011 09:35, Kenneth Loafman <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> I'm mixed about this.  Nokia dropped Maemo, but the Maemo group is still
>>>> alive.  I'm not sure how active it is, so we would possibly be leaving them
>>>> at a dead end if we upped it to GPL-3.  I could always just pull the project
>>>> from the Maemo site, I guess.  There was never much interest in it.
>>>>
>>>> ...Ken
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Terry <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello!  I just realized today that since Nokia has abandoned Maemo
>>>>> (and Linux in general it seems), the major proponent of a GPL-2
>>>>> license in duplicity probably no longer cares.  Is there interest in
>>>>> bumping the license again?
>>>>>
>>>>> -mt
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>>> address@hidden
>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>>> address@hidden
>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>>> address@hidden
>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Duplicity-talk mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk
>>


_______________________________________________
Duplicity-talk mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk

-- 
Joe MacDonald
:wq