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

[Jean-Michel Smith]

Greetings,

The GPL v. 3.0 is a good license by and large, offering some
protection against software patents (in countries where they exist,
and should they come to Europe), TiVo-style abuses of the GPL (where
the source code is released, but made valueless because of hardware
encryption or cryptographic key schemes), and so on.  It also
clarifies the relationships that arise with dynamically loaded
libraries and other looser couplings between software components.

Generally the FSF has recommended releasing software under "GPL Ver.
2.0 or greater."  Licensing discussions often become quite heated, as
people who care about such things naturally form rather strong
opinions around language that decides how and to what extent they can
use, modify, or distribute code.  Should this arise in the blender
community, I would suggest a possible approach of releasing the code
with phraseology somewhat like:

"This program 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, version 3, or (at
your option)
    any later version."

This would explicitly dual license blender under GPL v2, GPL v3, and
allow painless upgrades should the legal environment change and the
GPL need to be modified again.  As the GPL v3 is GPL v2 compatible,
other GPLed components can remain in Blender unmodified, and should
anyone take exception to the newer license, the software remains dual
licensed under the terms of the older GPL.

With luck, such an approach might satisfy those who embrace GPL v3, as
well as those that view it with some suspicion (despite the
thoroughness with which the FSF has factually rebutted those
suspicions).

Just my 2p worth.

Regards,

Jean.

On 30/06/07, Shaul Kedem <shaul.kedem at gmail.com> wrote:
> Renato, is this the paper?
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html
>
>
> On 6/30/07, Chris Burt <desoto at exenex.com> wrote:
> > "Please ignore if you are not interested."
> >
> > Isn't that the normal response of people who aren't interested in something?
> >
> > Regards,
> > --Chris
> >
> > On 6/29/07, Renato Perini <rperini at email.it> wrote:
> > > I post this fact here, for those of you who are interested (and for
> > > those who are unaware of it).
> > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
> > >
> > > I'm still waiting for the Stallman's paper on "Why to upgrade". The link
> > > on the site is still broken.
> > > Please ignore if you are not interested.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Renato Perini
> > >
> > >
> > >  --
> > >  Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
> > >
> > >  Sponsor:
> > >  Mondolastminute: voli, soggiorni, viaggi a prezzi lastminute
> > >  Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=6709&d=30-6
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bf-committers mailing list
> > > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>


-- 
Jean-Michel Smith
http://jm-smith.com/