Re: Uniformity - licenses

[Christian Persch <chpe gnome org>]

Hi;

Am Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:25:01 -0500
schrieb Jason Clinton <me jasonclinton com>:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:36, Robert Ancell
> <robert ancell gmail com>wrote:
> 
> > On 22 October 2010 21:49, Christian Persch <chpe gnome org> wrote:
> > > Hi;
> > >
> > > Am Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:09:07 +0200
> > > schrieb "Thomas H.P. Andersen" <phomes gmail com>:
> > >> Gnome games is in many ways a messy module. I would like to have
> > >> a long term goal of making it more uniform.
> > >>
> > >> One thing is the differences in the license for each game/lib.
> > >> Could we agree on a goal to move towards a specific license?
> > >> There seems to already be a push towards GPL3+ (aisleriot, vala
> > >> port of glchess).
> > >
> > > I've already changed all of my gnome modules to GPL 3+, so
> > > obviously I'm in favour of doing the same for gnome-games :)
> >
> > I'm happy to comply with a standard GPL license - no particular
> > preference which one.
> 
> 
> No preferences here either but we would need to get approval from all
> people whom have copyright claims in our code. That turns out to be
> quite a few people.

That's a bit of a problem, yes. I had assumed that all .h/.c/.cpp files
in gnome-games had a proper GPL copyright header with the "or later"
clause (which permits moving from GPL2+ to GPL3+), but now that I've
looked it turns out that a lot of the games (at least mahjongg, gtali,
gnobots, and gnect (for the velena engine)) don't have that. So this
probably makes the proposed move to GPL3+ impossible for these games.

	Christian

	Christian