delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Cam-AntiVirus: | no malware found |
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: | http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ |
Message-ID: | <1409796664.7299.1.camel@cam.ac.uk> |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] Fonts for PCB Designer |
From: | Peter Clifton <pcjc2 AT cam DOT ac DOT uk> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Thu, 04 Sep 2014 03:11:04 +0100 |
In-Reply-To: | <CAHUm0tPBr=tVpcLesa3Gpuh9BT2kYBMCnRiPmwvm8zC5bF989g@mail.gmail.com> |
References: | |
<CAHUm0tMfu1qjxHrTHp74qmOKHhHSxV_-sr+izme7kz4rhA-NgA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> | |
<201408281531 DOT s7SFVGWn020908 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> | |
<CAHUm0tPBr=tVpcLesa3Gpuh9BT2kYBMCnRiPmwvm8zC5bF989g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> | |
X-Mailer: | Evolution 3.12.4-0ubuntu1 |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 01:43 +0930, Erich Heinzle wrote: > I have revised the license to GPL v2 to simplify things. It might be more future proof (assuming you don't mind the GPL3 or later as a future option), to have a document stating the licensing as follows: " This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. " The "(at your option) any later version." clause may be useful, if at some future point we are forced to move to GPL3 due to the viral influence of various libraries / projects we might want to depend upon - notably those owned by the FSF/GNU project. (In practice, I think gEDA/gaf ends up being distributed under GPL3, due to Guile versions being GPL3 now). I'm NOT a big fan of the FSF, or the GPL3, and I see a number of open source CAD packages / libraries stuck in license limbo because they use GPL2/LGPL2 (due to their existing codebase / lawyers / whatever), and thus cannot use various GNU / FSF copyright owned packages which have been automatically bumped to GPL3/LGPL3. It really stings, and feels wrong that a GPL2 program and a LGPL3 library are incompatible. Linking exception anyone? -- Peter Clifton <peter DOT clifton AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk> Clifton Electronics
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |