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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.4-0ubuntu1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

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