Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

There are few by error.
The important cases are lineup-parameters used for uncrustify, and the threatics part from gnome-builder.
However, we already spent time on implementing our own thing in the past with git-archive-all (GPLv3+) when meson couldn't handle it, so I would like to prevent this from happening again and avoid us the work with asking few upstreams to relicense based on our needs, and rather switch to GPL3+ where most of the tools are.

Best regards,
Carlos Soriano

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Local Time: May 17, 2017 4:59 PM
UTC Time: May 17, 2017 2:59 PM
From: hadess hadess net
To: Michael Catanzaro <mike catanzaro gmail com>
Ernestas Kulik <ernestask gnome org>, nautilus-list gnome org, desktop-devel-list gnome org, release-team gnome org

On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 09:45 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
> wrote:
> > If nautilus is GPLv3+, that means we can't link it against GPLv2-
> > only
> > or LGPLv2-only libraries in the extensions. I'm also not opening
> > the
> > can of worms that is non-GPL-compatible dependencies of extensions
> > (such as proprietary, or patent-encumbered GStreamer plugins),
> > because
> > that's an existing problem.
> >
> > What's the end goal for relicensing? What problems do the current
> > license cause that require a relicense?
> >
> > Cheers
> Sounds like the license is already GPLv3+, since it uses GPLv3+
> source
> files, and the existing GPLv2+ notices are incorrect or misleading.

Were those licenses applied in error, or imported from projects that
were GPLv3 themselves?
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list gnome org

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