license categories, was: I'm not supposed to use the ECL v2?

[Chris Travers]

On Nov 30, 2007 3:45 PM, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:

> Chris Travers wrote:
> >
> > I notice that any reasonable reading of that page would seem to suggest
> > that the use of the GPL v3 (being incompatible with the GPL v2 and not
> > as widely used) is strongly discouraged by the OSI.  I trust this was
>
> The GPLv3 is widely used.  Anyone who used the FSF's preferred form of
> licence grant dual licenced GPL v2 and v3 (and all future versions).


I replied off-list with a variant of this to David, but I think that there
are a *lot* of projects (LedgerSMB included) which use GPL v2 or later as
their license but cannot be distributed in many forms under the GPL v3.  In
the case of LedgerSMB, even accepting that the PostgreSQL license is
compatible, as soon as I distribute any part of the application which is not
the preferred form for making changes, I run amok with the fact that
PostgreSQL (usually) uses openssl and we don't provide a license exception.

So it is a real stretch to say that it is available under the GPL v3.  It is
available under the full GPL v2 and a subset (source distribution only) of
the GPL v3.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071130/30008d6b/attachment.html>