3 ms·

I'm saying this is a situation where a different license might make sense. The Open Source projects that could make use of said library, can't use said library

by pyre 12y ago

I'm saying this is a situation where a different license might make sense. The Open Source projects that could make use of said library, can't use said library because of GPLv3. No one else wants to use it, and the project is dying on the vine. Maybe it makes sense to change the license so that the projects that could make use of it, are now legally able to. This might encourage developers to come back to the project, and improve the software ecosystem as a whole...

majika 12y ago
> I'm saying this is a situation where a different license might make sense. I completely agree. That's why I asked in my original comment why the other library authors don't want to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3+, or why the LibreDWG authors won't switch to a non-copyleft license if they've changed their minds on copyleft.
- pyre 12y ago
  > LibreDWG authors won't switch My reading of the article says that the copyright belongs to the FSF. It seems unlikely that the FSF will ever change license to anything other than GPLv3+. Some of the other projects seem like forks where the original code copyright belongs to someone else. Unless the original owned changes the license, the devs have their hands tied.