Re: Final text of GPL v3
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Final text of GPL v3
- From: Florian Weimer <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:33:55 +0200
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com> (Francesco Poli's message of "Sun, 1 Jul 2007 01:01:19 +0200")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
* Francesco Poli:
>> Well, we can decide this on a case-by-case basis. We already have to,
>> because licenses which require certain notices to be preserved are
>> very common.
> Yes, that is exactly what I expressed: the disappointment that
> GPL-compatibility is no longer a DFSG-compliance guarantee.
> Some restrictions that can be legally added to a GPLv3'd work will make
> the work non-free, so we have to check on a case-by-case basis... :-(
But in reality, this is nothing new. People slap the GPLv2 on
combined works which they cannot legally license this way. There have
been quite a few surprises. I don't think this change is a major
issue for us, we just have to be careful as ever.
To be honest, I can't see any problems with this particular aspect of
the SHING GPL.