Vote a. Generally I think that's a good place to start, I think that we should evaluate in the future moving to a GPLv3+ stance as the patent protections would be good for us in the graphics market. But, I think it is better to have a good stance first rather than the the perfect one. Ted On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 18:03 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A majority vote of the current board members is required for the following matter.
Proposal:
The Board officially states that the Inkscape Project's intention is for the main codebase to be licensed as GPL version 2 or later.
[ ] a. Approve statement that Inkscape is GPLv2+ [ ] b. The board should state a different licensing policy: > > _________________________________________________
[ ] c. The board should not state a license intent at thistime
Background:
When Inkscape's code was originally written, it was important that it be covered by the GPL. At that time, GPLv3 had not been created, and so version distinctions didn't seem compelling enough to necessitate spelling it out definitively, and thus it generally wasn't. Indeed, it was not uncommon to leave out the boilerplate licensing statements from the code files simply for expediency; the assumption was that placing them in the repository was sufficient for "inheriting" the standard Inkscape licensing.
Over time the project accumulated snippets of code adopted from other projects, some of which had different licensing policies. Generally these were compatible with the GPL license of the codebase, but not always.
Inevitably all of this has led to some developer confusion over exactly what Inkscape's licensing policy is and what it should be. With the added complexity of GPL version 3 (and other permutations such as "GPL v2 only"), it is becoming clear that Inkscape needs to be more precise at tracking the licensing of the codebase, down at least to individual file boilerplates.
An obvious first step is to have a firm decision by the project about what the licensing *should* be, so that all code that is descrepant from that can be addressed, and the codebase brought into compliance through regular development efforts.
Note that this decision will be only for the core codebase itself. Plugins, dependency libraries, and other accessory codebases such as the website, will need to be generally compatible with GPLv2+ (assuming that's what we choose) to the degree that the GPL requires in order for them to link to, or be distributed with, Inkscape, or else Inkscape will be unable to continue using them; however, this board decision is not dictating what the exact license should be for those products, and any adjustments needed to them as a side-effect of this decision are left to their developers to sort out as makes the most sense for them.
Inkscape Board inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-board mailing list Inkscape-board@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board