Updating from LGPL 2 to LGPL 3

Francesco Fumanti francesco.fumanti at gmx.net
Sat Aug 7 18:40:23 UTC 2010


On 08/07/2010 04:56 PM, Remco wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 15:57, John Moser<john.r.moser at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Are you a maintainer of the package or an actual code contributor for the
>> project?

I do not think that I can qualify myself as a real code contributer, but I am the one who will probably create the next release tarball; of course, with the consent of the main developer. (The package is hosted on launchpad and I have write access to it.)

If I am going to change the license, I will do that in trunk before creating the release and again, it will be done with the consent of the core developer, whom I am in contact with.

>> Raising the license seems silly if you're not a core dev or significant
>> contributor.  *GPL3 were driven by politics and contain language not well
>> tested in court (particularly, the completely ineffective patent language);
>> so a third-party relicense of someone else's code would seem political and
>> ill-conceived.

Do I get it right? You are telling us that LGPL 2.1 is a better license than LGPL 3 and that it might be better staying with LGPL 2.1?

> It would be ill-conceived regardless of your opinion of the new GPL.
> Nobody else but the developers decide on the license, simple as that.




More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list