On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 09:34 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ryan Lortie <desrt desrt ca> wrote: > > Anybody who has an application that is GPLv2-only and has accepted > > enough contributions that it has become an unreasonable proposition to > > relicense has made a significant mistake. I don't want to punish them > > or anything, but they are the ones who picked a licence that prevents > > them from linking against just about anything. > > At least one company in our ecosystem has been, at least in some > cases, writing GPLv3-only code. Which seems like an odd choice to me > that probably needs some justification. Not sure if you're meaning Canonical there, but I thought I'd clarify if you were. Canonical's policy is that everything is GPLv3 (or AGPLv3 for service stuff) unless an exception is needed. For instance, I got exceptions for libappindicator and libdbusmenu and those are all LGPL2.1/3 to resolve the issue of needing to link with GPLv2 programs. Personally, I feel that libraries need to be LGPLv2/3. I'd love it if they could be LGPLv3, but that's probably not practical. IANAL but I'm curious if a "standard exception" couldn't be drafted for LGPLv3 to allow linking with GPLv2 programs. Perhaps with work, that could be GNOME policy going forward? I like v3, but I think we need to be able to link to v2 programs. --Ted
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part