[Bf-committers] GPLv3 Released (for license gurus).

[joe]

This makes me wonder if any of the licenses of libraries we use would
be invalid under
the GPL v3, too.

Personally, I can't see us switching, mostly because every past
contributor would have to
agree to the switch (which means tracking them all down.  Now, if the
two licenses were
compatible we could switch incrementally, but unfortunately that's not the case.

And anyway, I think v2 of the GPL is good enough for us :)

Joe

On 6/30/07, Martin Poirier <theeth at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> --- Jean-Michel Smith <jean at jm-smith.com> wrote:
> > As the GPL v3 is GPL v2 compatible,
>
> Except that they aren't.
>
> """
> When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it
> means there is no legal way to combine code under
> GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This
> is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses:
> each of them says, "If you include code under this
> license in a larger program, the larger program must
> be under this license too." There is no way to make
> them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility
> clause to GPLv3, but it wouldn't do the job, because
> GPLv2 would need a similar clause.
> """
>
> Third paragraph: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>