Hi,
The below listed packages are some of the widely used GNU/Linux Free Softwares hosted in gnu.org.
Package License URL =========================================================
bash gplv2 http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/ diffutils gplv2 http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/ gdbm gplv2 http://www.gnu.org/software/gdbm/ libtool gplv2 http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/ ncurses MIT http://www.gnu.org/software/ncurses/ time gplv2 ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/time/ bc gplv2 http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bc/ dejagnu gplv2 http://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/ gperf gplv2 http://www.gnu.org/software/gperf/ make gplv2 http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/make/
The common nature of these packages are: a) Free Softwares hosted in gnu.org b) All are non GPLv3
While we are fighting to make GNU/Linux kernel and other softwares to be under GPLv3, why we are forgetting these packages as these packages are hosted in gnu.org itself ?
I think , it will be better for use to use a page in any of the open wikis to track these programs (the above given list is not complete) and complete the conversion to GPLv3 on a priority basis for these packages.
Hmm.. I don't think we can do something to a package like ncurses which is distributed under MIT License.
Thanks and Regards, Maxin B. John
Please avoid cross posting. I think posting to FSUG-Bangalore list is enough to solve your doubts.
The common nature of these packages are: a) Free Softwares hosted in gnu.org b) All are non GPLv3
A lot of packages in your list is licensed (bash, gdbm, libtool, bc etci didn't checked all)with following Clause
----- 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.
This allows to distribute same package under GPLv2 or on Later Version (ie GPL v3 for now)
While we are fighting to make GNU/Linux kernel and other softwares to be under GPLv3, why we are forgetting these packages as these packages are hosted in gnu.org itself ?
We are not fighting to convert Linux kernel (It is Linux kernel itself) to GPLv3. Linux Kernel developers are fee to choose their license. GPLv3 provides them a good option to avoid issues like Tivoisation . GPLv3 already become a widely adopted Free Software License.
I think , it will be better for use to use a page in any of the open wikis to track these programs (the above given list is not complete) and complete the conversion to GPLv3 on a priority basis for these packages.
Most among your list are usable under GPLv3. we are not in a mision to convert all the Free softwares to a single license. Free Software always supports Diversity. Software Compatibility with Free Software Definition is enough in most cases Palamida already running a GPLv3 watch Project at http://gpl3.blogspot.com/ (their GPLv3 Watch site seems to be down)
Hmm.. I don't think we can do something to a package like ncurses which is distributed under MIT License.
MIT License is GPL-compatible, ie. the GPL permits combination and redistribution with software that uses the MIT License. at the same time MIT license allows reuse within proprietary software on the condition that the license is distributed with that software,
Anivar Aravind FSUG-bangalore http://bangalore.gnu.org.in
-
Anivar Aravind -
Maxin John