I don't understand why a change in licence is preventing the release of 2.0 final. Shouldn't a change in licence be able to be made quickly and easily if properly planned in advance? 5 years and 2.0 final is still baking... Honestly, i think it's just a clever way for the developers to say that the final version is not yet ready! Packing my non-existent admin hopes until 2012! LOL
You assume that the license change had been planned well in advance and that things were straightened. You would be seriously wrong. While there had been license change discussions for multiple years, including work on an OSI-compatible license based on the current one, the decision to tie a license change with the release of 2.0 appears to have been made fairly recently as far as i can tell. Only about a year ago, at most.
Combine that short of a time with the need to get signoff from all historical contributors (or at least major efforts to contact contributors) as there was no central copyright holder (CLAs have also recently been passed out to prevent this situation in the future) with the pegging of the 2.0 release on the finalization of the non-profit group and you get a huge cluster****** blocking any release.
Personally, I'd release 2.0 already with the old license and migrate to a new license as soon as it becomes possible rather than holding up an actual production release because of disfunction. Of course, that would probably cause even further schism and bull****** to fly around. Basically, the release table for 2.0 is ******ed because of politics.
So, can we take from this that the final release is no where near being released? sigh
Who knows. The release of 2.0 is tied to a lot of political bull****** and the NPO stuff is still
not finalized as far as I know (no announcements on that yet and quite a bit of dodging the question). RC5 would otherwise probably have been the final release if it wasn't for the crack-addled plans.