<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 August 2015 at 09:17, Jussi Kukkonen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jussi.kukkonen@intel.com" target="_blank">jussi.kukkonen@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">>> * License is now GPLv3+<br>
><br>
> What about GPLv2 version which was preserved (IIRC) in prevous patch?<br>
><br>
> Why did you decide to drop it now?<br>
<br>
</span>Mostly because of Ross' comment "Is screen considered sufficiently<br>
core that we should maintain both GPLv2 and v3 recipes? I'm not<br>
convinced it is".<br>
<br>
I did try to coax people to explain their thoughts in a little more<br>
detail (because I wasn't sure what exactly they were saying) in my<br>
reply on Aug 12 but no-one did... So I figured it's better to talk<br>
with patches: I believe maintaining the GPLv2 version is not a great<br>
use of anyones time (and I think it's fair to say that the recipe<br>
wasn't receiving the sort of attention it would have required) and<br>
making a developer tool like that GPLv3 shouldn't be a problem to most<br>
people.</blockquote></div><br>FWIW, I still agree with my statement and with Jussi here.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Ross</div></div>