On Jan 4, 2008 8:23 AM, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
But I suggest any further discussion on this topic should be done in a new thread.
I don't know if it really merits its own thread, but here goes...
The easiest thing would be to remove this phrase but are we allowed to?
I would say you can, unless somebody who contributed to geany in the past objects to it. If they do, you can either add the phrase back in again, or simply remove or re-implement the code they contributed.
Besides any lethal considerations which I don't know, in my opinion the choice of the licence of plugins is independent from Geany's licence as long as it is compatible with GPLv2.
I agree, as long as the plugin is distributed separately.
But if a plugin's source is distributed along with Geany, then it would add the extra burden of explaining any small nuances between the way the plugin interprets the GPL (v2 only) and the way Geany currently sees it (v2 or later)
I suppose that's still not a problem, just a possible source of confusion.
- Jeff
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:44:47 -0600, "Jeff Pohlmeyer" yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 8:23 AM, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
But I suggest any further discussion on this topic should be done in a new thread.
I don't know if it really merits its own thread, but here goes...
The easiest thing would be to remove this phrase but are we allowed to?
I would say you can, unless somebody who contributed to geany in the past objects to it. If they do, you can either add the phrase back in again, or simply remove or re-implement the code they contributed.
I guessed I have to write to everyone and ask about it ;-(.
Besides any lethal considerations which I don't know, in my opinion the choice of the licence of plugins is independent from Geany's licence as long as it is compatible with GPLv2.
I agree, as long as the plugin is distributed separately.
But if a plugin's source is distributed along with Geany, then it would add the extra burden of explaining any small nuances between the way the plugin interprets the GPL (v2 only) and the way Geany currently sees it (v2 or later)
I suppose that's still not a problem, just a possible source of confusion.
Sure but only as long as we use the "any later" phrase.
Regards, Enrico
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:44:47 -0600 "Jeff Pohlmeyer" yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 8:23 AM, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
But I suggest any further discussion on this topic should be done in a new thread.
I don't know if it really merits its own thread, but here goes...
The easiest thing would be to remove this phrase but are we allowed to?
I would say you can, unless somebody who contributed to geany in the past objects to it. If they do, you can either add the phrase back in again, or simply remove or re-implement the code they contributed.
I agree. But I'm still not sure, if it is really necessary, since GPLv2 is a part of GPLv2 or later.
But I see another problem: If Geany is GPLv2 only there might will be problems with Plugins written under conditions of GPLv3, since v2 is not completly compatible to v3.
Besides any lethal considerations which I don't know, in my opinion the choice of the licence of plugins is independent from Geany's licence as long as it is compatible with GPLv2.
I agree, as long as the plugin is distributed separately. But if a plugin's source is distributed along with Geany, then it would add the extra burden of explaining any small nuances between the way the plugin interprets the GPL (v2 only) and the way Geany currently sees it (v2 or later)
I suppose that's still not a problem, just a possible source of confusion.
That's true.
I suppose to keep GPLv2 or any later so the distributor can decide, which licence he like to choice. Also to setup a paypal-account to collect money to ask a lawyer, what's the best :D
Frank