[PD-dev] GPLv3

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:14 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hallo,
> IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>
>> is there a reason for this switch? (apart from staying "current")
>>
>> i haven't followed the discussion about GPLv3 in the last month, but
>> last time i did it was _very_ controversial...
>
> It's not that controversial anymore as I see it. See
> http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/92214 for a quick overview in german
> language.
>
> A practical issue to be aware of is, that GPLv3 is incompatible with
> "GPLv2 only", but it is compatible with "GPLv2 or later".  As I see
> it, one result would be that as soon as one external in pd-extended
> becomes GPLv3, all of pd-extended becomes GPLv3 and no external, that
> is licensed under "GPLv2 only" can be included anymore.

I want to switch because I believe in the issues that the FSF is  
trying to address. Software patents cause us a lot of problems, think  
MP3, all of the video codecs, etc.  Does anyone here object to the  
GPLv3?

Making the Pd-extended packages GPLv3 would not force any code  
licensed "GPLv2 or later" to change their license.  It would allow  
some people to switch their license to GPLv3 and still have it  
distributed with Pd-extended.  The only problem would be if people  
have licensed their code as _only_ GPLv2.

.hc


>
> Ciao
> -- 
>  Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev



------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
----

Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is  
related to the telescope.      -Edsger Dykstra