On 11 May 2010 12:29, <david@lang.hm> wrote:
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Chris Nighswonger wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:25 PM, <david@lang.hm> wrote:
As for moving from GPLv2 to GPLv3, what is the reason for making the move? is there code that you want to merge (either way) with a GPLv3 project?
Please read my original proposal for the reasoning behind the move.
I've gone back and dug it up from the archives.
What is the code that you want to merge that is under the AGPL?
It's already been posted that you use code from a GPLv2 project, so you would have to get that project to move to GPLv3 (or 2+) to continue using their code.
Koha is currently licensed under GPLv2 or later with the exception of OpenNCIP. This is not a blocker, but rather a "bug" to be "fixed." There are no show-stoppers to the move to GPLv3/AGPLv3.
If this is the case, all you need to do is to eliminate any GPLv2 code and merge one piece of AGPL code and the result can only be distributed under the AGPL.
This will de-facto change the code from the current GPLv2 license (due to the inclusion of GPLv2 only code) to AGPLv3 (due to the inclusion of AGPLv3 only of AGPLv3+ code)
If this is the reason, then you are really not considering GPLv3 as a license.
Is the code that you will get from moving to GPLv3 worth the loss of the code that you currently get from GPLv2?
We will loose know code afaik in such a move. Please cite examples.
Others have posted some existing GPLv2 code that would need to be replaced.
The FSF claims that the GPLv3 is in the same spirit as the GPLv2, but many programmers disagree (which is why many codebases remain GPLv2)
What is the specific behavior that you think is happening under the GPLv2 that you think will be blocked by the GPLv3? I am not a contributer, just a lurker (not even running the program, yet..) but I have not seen any behavior being discussed that would be blocked by the GPLv3.
Again, please re-read my original proposal for the why and wherefore.
From the message I found in the archives (http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/2010-May/023803.html), it sounds like you believe that moving to AGPLv3 will cause significant additional code to be contributed that would not be contributed without that license.
However, you don't point at what code would be contributed, or who would be contributing code under that license but not under the existing license (or a plain GPLv3 license).
I think that such info would be important for such a license change.
Is there another message that I should be looking at?
The mere fact that the Koha community is growing is not a good reason for changing the license. Personally I would consider the fact that the community is growing to be a good indication that the existing license is good and not mess with it.
Hi David It's interesting who comes out of the woodwork when licensing comes up, it seems people have strong opinions on it, even people only tangentially related to the project. I think you are missing a lot of context to this discussion, it has come up quite a few times in the past, and the fact is the growing trend worldwide of Software as a Service, and the ghettoisation of code and users that can result from that is what is behind (at least for myself) this discussion. I think that users should have the right to have the source code of the software they are using, and I believe that this freedom is one of the 4 freedoms the GPL was designed to protect. I think that these freedoms outweigh some nebulous security concern, and that the important thing is that users are protected from lockin. If you have a better way to achieve this than APGL3, or GPLv3 + an additional clause, I'm all ears. Chris