Licensing clarification, updates

Josh Sled jsled at
Sun Jul 15 16:57:52 EDT 2007

Christian Stimming <stimming at> writes:
> * In addition to this, contributions by the following devs are licensed under 
> GNU GPL, Version 2, "or (at your option) any later version": cstim, ..., and 
> all source code files that contain this clause.

I prefer the license to be attached to the file; at least as a level of
indirection.  E.g., the file could just say "Licensed under GPLv2, OpenSSL
exception (see LICENSE)".  I don't think it's as good to have an "indexing"
license file that described all the individual source files, or tried to
create "classes" by contributor.

> Also (or alternatively), couldn't we also say "All contributions before [some 
> date in the past] are licensed under GPLv2 or any later version"? When 
> thinking about the license on a per-contribution basis, I think the most 
> precise wording could include the fact that you used to contribute code under 
> GPLv2 or later, but then changed your mind at [some date in the past] and 
> everything since then is GPLv2-only? 

I'm not sure to what end.  The VC history contains this information, to some
degree, as well.

> Also, I think I'd be interested to license my contributions under (brand-new) 
> GPLv3 in addition to the common GPLv2 license. I think this could be added in 
> the LICENSE file by stating something like "In addition to this, 
> contributions by ..., cstim, ... are licensed under GPLv3 as well". Should 
> something like this rather be avoided, or would that be fine? What do the 
> others plan so far?

I think that sounds fine; I'd still modify the text of the files
individually, as I said above.

I've not had time to review the GPLv3 myself, yet.

...jsled - a=jsled;; echo ${a}@${b}
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list