Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+

[Carlos Soriano <csoriano protonmail com>]

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

https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list