On 8/21/07, Joshua D. Drake <..hidden..> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chris Travers wrote:
> Hi John and others,
>
> My major reason for suggesting that a change to the BSDL would not be good
> is because I think that consistant licensing is good for the community and
> therefore we should try to keep the license as much as possible under the
> same spirit as possible under the GPL v2 or later circumstnaces that existed
> prior to the release of the GPL v3.
I am confused by this statement, GPL v2 is hardly the only major license
out there... Or maybe I am not understanding your point.
You are not getting my point. Sorry for the miscommunication.
Prior to GPL v3 release, GPL v2 provided a set of permissions and widespread compatibility with other FOSS component. GPL v2+ meant effectively GPL v2 only.
GPL v3 offers a fundamentally different and incmpatible set of differences, and it is likely that components we depend on will upgrade forcing us to either move to toher dependencies, fork our dependencies, or upgrade our license. It also means that GPL'd changes to our code could be under GPL v3 and so we could not include them back in if we wanted to.
I don't think the GPL v3 is in quite the same spirit as the GPL v2 and I don't have any illusions that GPL v2+ will be an option forever.