[ANNOUNCE] upstart 0.5.2 released

[Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi)]

Fedora and Redhat may not have issues with distributing GPLv3. 
But I can guarantee you customers of Redhat, Monta Vista, etc which
include many large companies will have a problem with it. As I
understand it many of these companies do have a policy of not using
GPLv3. 

So yes it will be a problem. Now Redhat/Monta Vista might package it as
part of the distro, but will most likely still leave SysVInit as part of
the distro and everyone with a policy of not using GPLv3 will not be
using it in their products.

Also note that these same companies which see benefit in functionality
similar to Upstart WILL go off and do their own replacement. Which will
look a lot like upstart in functionality but be branched for licensing
reasons. 

In my opinion, it does not seem to be in the best interest of Upstart
itself, as I think we should be pushing for as wide an adoption as
possible for upstart. This will cause branching of Upstart or at the
least alternative implementation.

This change in licence pretty much gaurantees that upstart gets branched
at this point OR dropped/replaced entirely. 

This is very unfortunate.

Sarvi

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Nottingham [mailto:notting at redhat.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 11:39 AM
To: Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi)
Cc: Scott James Remnant; Upstart Development
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] upstart 0.5.2 released
Importance: High

While I don't have a particular isse with upstart being GPLv2 or
GPLv3...

Saravanan Shanmugham (sarvi) (sarvi at cisco.com) said: 
> I notice that Fedora, Redhat and quite a few other distros also 
> package upstart as part of their distros and many of these distros as 
> use by the industry.

Fedora and Red Hat have no isse with shipping GPLv3 software.

> The core set of components have so far been GPLv2. 

coreutils, cpio, binutils, gcc, are all examples of GPLv3 licensed
packages that could be considered part of the core set of components.

Bill