[darcs-devel] [patch704] replace copyright message with module doc

Will Langstroth will at langstroth.com
Thu Jan 26 12:27:44 UTC 2012


>
>  > Is "License: GPL" really that ambiguous? Maybe "GPLv2"?
>
> "License: GPL" has a standard definition, which is "any version of the
> GPL ever published by the FSF, at your option."  This is probably not
> desirable.  GPL v1 had real problems (not big ones, but real ones;
> unlike GPL v2, which had imaginary problems that they decided to fix
> anyway ;-).  Using GPL v1 *now* creates a very big problem though;
> it's license incompatible with almost everything.
>

I'm starting to appreciate the amount of post-traumatic stress you must
have accumulated in the course of this licensing nonsense. In my latest
patch, I've preserved the GPL notice above the module header, which
explicitly states version 2. The L/GPL version 2 licenses are are also on
display in the root directory, further reducing the ambiguity.

@Eric: how do you feel about this topic? Do you find GPL preferable to a
BSD3 license? I'm sure you know that you're the second largest contributor
in terms of patches applied.

@Petr: Thank you for Darcs.Annotate! Its output is far more helpful (and
attractive) than git-blame. Is this an MIT license I see before me?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-devel/attachments/20120126/e88b98be/attachment.html>


More information about the darcs-devel mailing list