On Jan 21 15:55, Warren Young wrote: > On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+? > > If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so. > > Can you actually do that, legally? I thought the copyright > assignments only applied to the DLL, not to setup.exe, so all > setup.exe contributors retained their copyright. I'm not trying to do that single-handedly and without reason. I'm asking here to reach out to the current active developers. A switch from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ works without having to reach out to *all* copyright holder. The current active devs are sufficient, this is one of the advantages of the '+' in GPLvX+. > I can’t say I’m wild about GPLv3, for reasons which don’t have to be > rehashed here, being well-documented already: GPLv3 is a nice license, IMHO. I don't agree with Linus on that call. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#GPLv3_separates_community_further > > What actual problem are you trying to solve with the change? A certain mail to the cygwin ML might require some action. The action is most thorougly (and quickly) done by pulling in some code from the Cygwin DLL. But Cygwin is under v3+, so it's incompatible with the current v2+ in Setup. That's why I'd like to bump version. Does that make it more tolerable? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat