7 Jul
2007
7 Jul
'07
4:18 p.m.
Suppose a package XX has a version-A under GPL-V2 and a forthcoming
version-B. Suppose also that version -B is a severe modification of
version-A. Now if version-B is to be released under GPL-V3 and suppose
the earlier version is also to be maintained for some time, then I
believe that the code from version-A would not be usable in version-B.
Or how is this migration handled ?
Best
A. Mani
--
A. Mani
Member, Cal. Math. Soc
9 Jul
9 Jul
11:49 a.m.
2007/7/7, Mani A <a.mani.cms(a)gmail.com>om>:
Suppose a package XX has a version-A under GPL-V2 and
a forthcoming
version-B. Suppose also that version -B is a severe modification of
version-A. Now if version-B is to be released under GPL-V3 and suppose
the earlier version is also to be maintained for some time, then I
believe that the code from version-A would not be usable in version-B.
Or how is this migration handled ?
Only those who owns the copyright to the package XX can change the
package version from GPL v2 to GPL v3. The same people (or those who
submit patches to v2 only branch) can relicense the code from v2 only
branch to v3.
I don't think it is a big issue, if you can make a v2 to v3 transition
from A to B, then why not the patches?
Cheers
Praveen
--
പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില്
Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now!
http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign
10 Jul
10 Jul
2:43 p.m.
On 7/9/07, Praveen A <pravi.a(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2007/7/7, Mani A <a.mani.cms(a)gmail.com>om>:
That is ok. I should have added that that version A contains GPL V2
only code that is from elsewhere.
Suppose a package XX has a version-A under GPL-V2
and a forthcoming
version-B. Suppose also that version -B is a severe modification of
version-A. Now if version-B is to be released under GPL-V3 and suppose
the earlier version is also to be maintained for some time, then I
believe that the code from version-A would not be usable in version-B.
Or how is this migration handled ?
Only those who owns the copyright to the package XX can change the
package version from GPL v2 to GPL v3. The same people (or those who
submit patches to v2 only branch) can relicense the code from v2 only
branch to v3.
I don't think it is a big issue, if you can make a v2 to v3 transition
from A to B, then why not the patches?
It seems that is a problem. Back porting
anything from B to A would
be providing for treacherous computing possibly. So in this kind of
situation it makes sense to stop maintaining version A. If a patch is
considered for version A and that is relevant for version B, then it
should be released for version B alone.
Best
A. Mani
--
A. Mani
Member, Cal. Math. Soc
3:06 p.m.
2007/7/10, Mani A <a.mani.cms(a)gmail.com>om>:
I don't understand what is your concern. Can you elaborate a bit?
There isn't anything new, even if only package B is maintained those
who want to use to treacherous computing can use version B (only thing
they have to maintain it for themselves).
That is ok. I should have added that that version A
contains GPL V2
only code that is from elsewhere.
If they can make that code GPL v3 then what is the issue about
updates? If you want to have the code available in both the branches
then you can dual license it so that it can be used in both v2 and v3
branch. Before accepting any changes to v2 branch this condition can
be set.
I don't think it is a big issue, if you can make a v2 to v3 transition
from A to B, then why not the patches?
It seems that is a problem. Back porting
anything from B to A would
be providing for treacherous computing possibly. So in this kind of
situation it makes sense to stop maintaining version A. If a patch is
considered for version A and that is relevant for version B, then it
should be released for version B alone.
As long as it is available in version B why bother about version A?
--
പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില്
Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now!
http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-DRM-Campaign
5926
days inactive
5929
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Mani A -
Praveen A