Updating from LGPL 2 to LGPL 3

Henrik Johansson dahankzter at gmail.com
Sun Aug 8 07:37:49 UTC 2010

Hash: SHA256

Don't you have to have permission from all the contributors?
I remember some such discussion about the kernel license a while back
and that seemed to be the consensus.

Perhaps it only applies to the contributors that have also created new

/ Henrik

On 08/07/2010 08:40 PM, Francesco Fumanti wrote:
> Hi,
> 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.
> +1
> Cheers,
> Francesco.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list