On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 07:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > In any case this is completely irrelevant, we are not asking anybody to > > go GPLv3, but to come out with a decision on what they want to do. Once > > that is clear we will know how to handle the situation. > Though I am strongly convinced about OpenSource and am usually > supporting it, for my own works, I have decided not to apply GPLv3 (at > least for now), because there are details inside I consider > counterproductive[1] and ... because I prefer not to expose myself to > the risks of this license :) And we choose not to provide you with our software, except on the terms that we find best protect it. We are very serious in this business, and have had more to do with the threats, protections and realities around GPL'ed software than many other projects. We choose this licence for good reason, and after wide consultation. If others cannot come to licence their software under the GPL version 2 or later (at your option), a long and respected option for free software licencing, then we respect their choice, and kindly ask that they respect ours. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
