On 06/10/2010 11:38 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Atte André Jensen wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I write a little code from time to time. I just discovered that at least >> some of it is still under GPL. Now I'm thinking about changing that to >> GPLv3. >> >> 1) Can I Just Do It, simply by stating on the webpage and/or in the >> software that it's under GPLv3. > > If its your code, then yes. > > If its other peoples code and the GPLv2 license says "GPL version 2 > or later" then is find to link with GPLv3 code. If you intend to > modify it heavily you can simply change the license to GPLv3 leaving > the copyright unmolested (apart from maybe adding your own (c) if > you are doing any significant additions. > >> 2) Is it (as I understand from >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html) recommended to change to >> GPLv3? What are the main advantages (both for the community and me) with >> GPLv3 and are there any drawbacks? Drawbacks include that it becomes much harder to combine code of difference [L]GPL license versions: It's a bit sad to look at the Matrix http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility The major reason why the [L]GPLv3 came to be is because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization In short: with GPLv2 someone can use your code in a product and while providing the source-code, prevent you from actually using your own version on that product. (This can be because the vendor does not publish the build-system or uses signatures on the builds). A common scenario these days is that GPLv3 is incompatible with the iPhone-app store, while GPLv2 is not. Depending on your standpoint, this can be an advantage or disadvantage. > The only problem is with code with a GPLv2 header where the part that says > "GPL version 2 or later" has been removed. I believe GPLv2only and GPLv3 > code is not compatible. > > Fors software licenses, this: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > > is really good. > >> NB2: I also wrote some "patches" for various synths and stuff like that. >> I know it's been brought up here before, but forgot the answers. Could >> that be released under GPL(v3) as well or is it better to use CC, and if >> so which dialect is recommended? > > CC Attribution (or maybe CC Share Alike) is probably best for synth patches. ...unless you want them to become a Debian package. Debian won't accept any CC licensed content in their official packages (basically because none of the Creative Commons licenses have a "source" requirement). Ubunutu however is not that pedantic about it. You can license the samples under GPL or make them available more freely (public-domain, MIT/X11, ..) to get them into Debian. Strictly speaking you're not providing a "source" of the sound either but you make the debian-legal people happy (well, it's not actually that simple, the debian-legal team has some good points; but it can take months to read and understand all the details involved.) On that note: Here's Richard Stallmann singing for you in Terms of the GPL: http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.au "If you are not used to a meter of 7/8, you may perceive it as inability to keep time." > Cheers, > Erik > Ciao, robin _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
