2007/7/10, 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.
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
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.
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).
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?
Join The DRM Elimination Crew Now!