Steven Edwards termination due to an inadvertent violation
if u read GPL v3 a terminations clause exists and it look same as GPL v3
I have not look at lgpl v3
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Edwards" winehacker@gmail.com To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.org Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [ros-dev] GPLv3 Migration - flamewar warning
On 7/3/07, Thomas Weidenmueller w3seek@reactos.com wrote:
I believe we've been very clear on the "or later version" clause. That's what the license says, and that's the rights we grant everybody.
That's partly why I ask.
Especially ReactOS should remain open to patent-related issues, at least allowing derived work to deal with patent issues.
Of course GPL3 code cannot go back into trunk unless it remains an independent part, ie. a stand-alone application, etc. That's the only downside I see. I think we only have to really think about switching to GPL3 in case WINE switches to it.
And this is the other part. There was a situation come up with Wine recently where the LGPLv3 would have served better than the LGPLv2 due to the termination clause in the v2 not giving a grace period for non-compliance. At some point Wine will get LGPLv3 I expect of for no other reason, then to clear up the problem of immediate license termination due to an inadvertent violation.
-- Steven Edwards
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev