dolfin team mailing list archive

["Johan Hoffman" <jhoffman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 06:33:12PM +0200, Johan Jansson wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:44:53PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
>> > One thing to discuss is which version of LGPL to use. There are
>> > several options:
>> >
>> >   1. Version 2.1
>> >   2. Version 2.1 or (at your option) any later version published by
>> FSF
>> >   3. Version 3 (soon to be published)
>> >
>> > Before making the switch from GPL --> LGPL, it would be good to decide
>> > on 1, 2 or 3 so we don't need to make another license change soon.
>> >
>> > /Anders
>>
>> The email we sent out to the authors only concerned version 2.1 though,
>> i.e. we sent a link to:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
>>
>> If we would have wanted to ask about allowing any future licenses, we
>> should have indicated that in the email, but we didn't do that. So if we
>> want to ask permission for that, we need to send out another mail.
>>
>> My intent is not at all to rush this (after all, we have waited several
>> months). But perhaps we can be satisfied for now that we have managed to
>> carry out at least this change? I think it would be much more
>> controversial to ask people to agree to distribute under a license which
>> doesn't exist yet (Version 3 and future licenses), so I think the best
>> plan would have been to do it step-by-step anyway.
>>
>> We can have a discussion about this now though if people are interested,
>> since it's become relevant. Would it make sense to have an open-ended
>> license, i.e.:
>>
>> # Copyright (C) 2007 Foo Bar
>> # Licensed under either the GNU LGPL Version 2.1
>> # or (at your option) any later version published
>> # by the Free Software Foundation.
>>
>> As I said, I'm highly skeptical of what would constitute giving the Free
>> Software Foundation a legal carte blanche with my license. Sure, they
>> seem
>> like reasonable people now, but who knows what they will decide in 10
>> years time? So I would probably say no to that. Or does this sound
>> reasonable to you?
>>
>>   Johan
>
> Agree. Also, they seem to publish new versions of their licenses once
> every 15 years or so, which means you don't need to struggle to keep
> up with their pace...
>
> The plan could be to stick with the LGPL v2.1 for now, and then in a
> year or so evaluate if we should move to LGPL v3 (and then keep that
> for the next 15 years). Does that sound reasonable?

Sounds good.

/JH


> /Anders
> _______________________________________________
> DOLFIN-dev mailing list
> DOLFIN-dev@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
>