Keith,
I clearly am not connected inthe correct circles. Where do I find a copy of the GPL V3? the OSI site only has the GPL Version 2 and LGPL version 2.1 as I see it.
Thanks,
Jim
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
GPL v3 currently exists only as a draft, and can be found on the FSF website (http://www.fsf.org/). There's been a bit of contraversy, because the Linux kernel developers (arguably the most prominant project released under GPL) don't like the version 3 draft. Personally, I'm indifferent, but I don't trust the FSF, so I havn't added the usual "or, at your option, any later version" language to my code, meaning any code I wrote for this project is licensed under v2 only. If anyone needs the code licensed under v3 (when it comes out), I wouldn't dual licensing under v2 and v3.
GPL version 3 is more restrictive than (and incompatible with) version 2.
-- Keith
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I don't mean to quibble, and I certainly respect your feelings on the topic and see no reason to chnage to the version 3 license either. However the current distribution does indeed have the "upgradable text" in the license headers.
If that is not what you originally posted to sourceforge, you may want to inquire as to who decided your GPL license text needed "fixing".
For example, the header from PWM.c dated 08/13/2002 from handylib 1.1 has these first two paragraphs...
/*
Pulse width modulation code. Used for controlling the motors.
Copyright (C) 2002 Keith Dunwoody (keithdunwoody@yahoo.com)
This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
later version.
...
The COPYING file in the root has the same text.
Jim
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hmmm, interesting... ignore this discussion then I guess :) Sorry for the confusion.
If it matters, I think I know why I got confused -- I think the original was LGPL, and I made my code GPL, using the LGPL -> GPL conversion clause. So I remembered that my code had different licensing from the original, and I've always been distrustful of the FSF, so with the recent v3 I got confused as to what the licensing difference was.
-- Keith
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Keith,
Milan is the current adminstrator of the library I believe. If he is ok the change I have no problem removing the "or later GPL version" phrase from copyright notices in the library.
Jim
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
In view of the latest GPL v2 vs GPL v3 brouhaha, I would like to point out that my code in this library is all GPL v2 ONLY.
-- Keith
Keith,
I clearly am not connected inthe correct circles. Where do I find a copy of the GPL V3? the OSI site only has the GPL Version 2 and LGPL version 2.1 as I see it.
Thanks,
Jim
Hi Jim,
GPL v3 currently exists only as a draft, and can be found on the FSF website (http://www.fsf.org/). There's been a bit of contraversy, because the Linux kernel developers (arguably the most prominant project released under GPL) don't like the version 3 draft. Personally, I'm indifferent, but I don't trust the FSF, so I havn't added the usual "or, at your option, any later version" language to my code, meaning any code I wrote for this project is licensed under v2 only. If anyone needs the code licensed under v3 (when it comes out), I wouldn't dual licensing under v2 and v3.
GPL version 3 is more restrictive than (and incompatible with) version 2.
-- Keith
Keith,
I don't mean to quibble, and I certainly respect your feelings on the topic and see no reason to chnage to the version 3 license either. However the current distribution does indeed have the "upgradable text" in the license headers.
If that is not what you originally posted to sourceforge, you may want to inquire as to who decided your GPL license text needed "fixing".
For example, the header from PWM.c dated 08/13/2002 from handylib 1.1 has these first two paragraphs...
/*
Pulse width modulation code. Used for controlling the motors.
Copyright (C) 2002 Keith Dunwoody (keithdunwoody@yahoo.com)
This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
later version.
...
The COPYING file in the root has the same text.
Jim
Hmmm, interesting... ignore this discussion then I guess :) Sorry for the confusion.
If it matters, I think I know why I got confused -- I think the original was LGPL, and I made my code GPL, using the LGPL -> GPL conversion clause. So I remembered that my code had different licensing from the original, and I've always been distrustful of the FSF, so with the recent v3 I got confused as to what the licensing difference was.
-- Keith
Keith,
Milan is the current adminstrator of the library I believe. If he is ok the change I have no problem removing the "or later GPL version" phrase from copyright notices in the library.
Jim