On 8/17/07, Stroller <..hidden..> wrote:
On 17 Aug 2007, at 17:39, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>> I have been trying to formulate my thinking about whether this
>> project
>> should upgrade the license to version 3 of the GNU GPL.
>
> At this time we need to be focusing on development of the product and
> not whether to upgrade to version 3 of a license. Not that the topic
> isn't important, but that we have much bigger fish to fry right now.
I think that some mention of this - sooner rather than later - is
worthwhile. It would be a shame to lose an active developer who has
contributed much to the project over a later disagreement over
license terms.
Some mention is important. An idea of how a change is likely to be addressed is important. Deciding now whether to move is not. I personally would rather see this project remain relatively apolitical about such things and I would hope this would be close to a concensus view.
If there are ideological concerns, I would rather get those out in the open and discussed as soon as possible though so that they don't blow up later.
Whilst I'm inclined myself to agree with Chris' feelings that you
"should wait until there is a compelling reason to update the
license" it is only fair for all contributors to the project to know
if there is a possibility that their code may become GPL v3 in the
future. Presumably Chris has a reason for raising this matter.
Well, I think it is only fair for people to be aware that if there is a compelling reason to change, that we may consier it, but that it needs to be based on that question.
I personally think that politics over the absolute merits of the GPL v3 do not belong in the project and we need to focus on whether it is necessary for *us.* I am perfectly willing to say that I have strong reservations about the GPL v3, but that this would not preclude me supporting a move to it if I thought that was right for the project.
My own concerns about the GPL v3 aside, I would note that changing licenses is likely to be very labor intensive for the core team in that we would have to go through all our dependencies and make sure that the license is compatible with all of them. This effort would need to be justified. As would the expense if legal advice was required (which it could well be given how much more complex the GPL v3 is). While this is the big hurdle, it is not impossible to meet if it becomes truly beneficial to change.
Potential issues which could arise might include dependencies moving to GPL v3 or later, questions of compatibility with the Apache or Microsoft Community licenses. Or even the patent protection clause. However since none of these matter now, I think it is premature to make a decision to move.
In short, I think that any license change, just like a code change, needs to be justified in terms of benefit for the project vs new issues that arise and the effort in reviewing or addressing those issues. I think at that point it should be discussed calmly and rationally.
This discussion shouldn't be to complicated! Surely all the
developers are familiar with the GPL. The GPL v3 is a contentious
subject and has been discussed to death elsewhere; there is therefore
no need for a flamewar on this list - surely a "now", "never!" or
"maybe" poll is all that's needed?
Part of the reason I sent the comment was to get thoughts from the community about what people think or want. While I can flame the GPL v3 with the best of them, I also recognize that personal concerns aside, we may have to make some hard decisions later and it is best not to prejudice them too much. I would, however, to wait and see for as long as possible before we have to decide what to do. It is still a good idea to start discussing it now.
Best WIshes,
Chris Travers