Re: GPL v3? Other license options?

[MJ Ray <..hidden..>]

Christopher Murtagh <..hidden..> wrote: [...]
>  Sure, but I don't really see the much of an advantage in our case to change 
> licenses (to v3 or LGPL). At the moment, I don't see the current license 
> causing any problems or confusion with anyone. Changing licenses makes people 
> leery though. [...]

Part of the reason it makes people leery is that often core developers
start frothing about "RMS kool-aid" and other irrational reasoning.

Seeing such things from developers of a finance system doesn't give
many people warm fuzzies, and least of all, any non-core developers
who are promoting it "out there".  I get spooked by talk of odd
licences like OSL and wonder whether I'm going to be migrating people
off of Ledger-SMB almost as soon as they've migrated onto it (because
I don't remember which of Lawrence Rosen's licences is OSL and whether
it has problems and I don't want to rereview it unless I must.  I want
to hack, not sift legalities.)

In addition to that, licensing is deeply unfun and a good thing to do
OnceAndOnceOnly until there's a compelling reason to change.  I don't
think the mere addition of GPLv3 to the licence proliferation is a
compelling reason.  Maybe if something related changes to GPLv3, or
something that likes v3 but not v2, it will, but let's wait and see.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/