WWN license issue
ian at ianmacfarlane.com
Wed Jan 16 08:23:32 CST 2008
For what it's worth, I would prefer, in general, if it were at least
GPLv2 or later, but considering that this is just a newsletter and not
source code, I don't care that much :)
To be honest, I think this it makes more sense under a Creative
Commons license (probably the simple Creative Commons Attribution
All the old ones at least should be changed to point to the GPLv2
license however, even if it is GPL2+ rather than GPL2-only.
On 1/15/08, Jeremy Newman <jnewman at codeweavers.com> wrote:
> I'll patch it so it points to the GPL v2 licence, unless someone feels
> there is a reason it needs to be v3.
> Zachary Goldberg wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2008 9:58 AM, Ian Macfarlane <ian at ianmacfarlane.com> wrote:
> >> At the bottom of each WWN issue (for example, the latest
> >> http://www.winehq.org/?issue=339) is the text:
> >> "All Kernel Cousin issues and summaries are copyright their original
> >> authors, and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> >> License, version 2.0. "
> >> However, it links to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt which of
> >> course is now the GPLv3 license text.
> >> Perhaps the text should change to say version 3 (or perhaps version
> >> 2+), or to the old archived GPLv2 license (IMO the former two options
> >> are preferable).
> > for the record: I have no personal preference on the license.
> > Whatever the WineHQ admins decide on the issue is fine with me.
More information about the wine-devel