On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 13:38 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > The bit that bothers me is that not only was Samba for the longest time > mentioned in most GPLv3 news articles, we asked if anybody had a reason > not to change our licence, and nobody gave a compelling reason. The rationales for projects not wanting to switch to GPLv3 are quite simple: - GPLv2 has a long tradition. How to apply it is well understood, its implications on works is well understood. - GPLv2 had been challenged at courts. Its leaks/wholes and its validity/applicability are well understood. With GPLv3 these points do not apply anymore. It's all "brand new". I.e. on one hand you have the FSF claiming GPLv3 to be "great progress" and to close "leaks" GPLv2 has/was accused to have, on the other hand you have fear und uncertainty due to lack of understanding the GPLv3 and lack of facts to support the FSF's claims (e.g. challenges at courts). Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
