M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > If, one might argue, the author wishes for the terms to remain those > of the GPLv2, why does he not remove the "or any later version" > option? The answer is simple. Such a license is not compatible with > the standard GPL (with the "upgrade" option), since it has "further > restrictions", compared to the version allowing a switch to a later > version.
The GPLv2 does not have an upgrade option. Authors may decide to offer a kind of dual license: one is GPLv2, another is "any later version of the GPL as published by the FSF". I really don't see how I am "imposing any further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPLv2" by not offering a dual license under a future GPLv3. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]