gEDA-dev: GPL3

[Steve Meier]

I routinely look at the copyright holder as I work on various geda based
files. I have yet to see anyone claim any copyright ownership other
then  Ales (though I know others have contributed) PCB is even worse...
DJ do you have a copyright in there some place? This is more of a legal
issue but if one want's to claim a copyright ownership shouldn't they do
so early? or to be more presise... should pcb or geda accept works where
the ownership isn't trasperent?

Steve Meier

DJ Delorie wrote:
>> It is already under the GPL with the clause "either version 2 of the
>> License, or (at your option) any later version."
>>     
>
> Some cautions...
>
> If someone *does* distribute a copy under GPL3, and someone else
> modifies that copy, the modifications are under GPL3, not GPL2+.  We
> may not be able to use them in the mainline without permission to
> relicense.
>
> One reason to move to GPL3 is if GPL2 has loopholes you wish to close.
> The "GPL2 or higher" variant doesn't close old loopholes, it only
> allows new permissions.
>
> The FSF is pushing GPL3 *hard*.  That means it will become harder to
> mix packages; for example, geda linked with GPL3 libraries *is* GPL3
> at that point; GPL3 is not compatible with GPL2 (the other way is
> compatible).  Fortunately for us, we use mostly system libraries,
> which are excepted by GPL2.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-dev mailing list
> geda-dev at moria.seul.org
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
>
>