Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?

[Hubert Figuiere <hub figuiere net>]

On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 16:03 -0400, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> Licensing Glade under the LGPL means that we
> might, at some point down the road, have an IDE that doesn't suck,
> which we can use for hacking Gnome.  While I'm sure you don't agree, I
> would rather have some IDE, regardless of license, than to have no
> IDE, under a Free Software license.

No yet another BitKeeper-like situation. We have seen what it does.

BTW, there are already 6 IDEs that are Free Software: Anjuta, KDevelop,
CodeBlock, Eclipse, MonoDevelop and Emacs[1]. So why wasting time to
allow a 7th one that could be non-free instead of making sure the
existing one rock even more.

I'm very skeptical about the whole process of relicensing Glade to allow
non-Free derivative of it.

Hub

[1] I possibly miss some more.