Re: (L)GPLv3

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]