On Thu 26 Aug 2010 12:48 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, Philipp wrote: > >> Hi, > >> I just looked up the GPL notation again. > >> Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki: > >> > >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards > >> > >> .. > >> The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions. > >> For (L)GPL software, the convention is: > >> > >> * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version > >> * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only > >> * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version > >> > >> > >> Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem. > >> How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only? > > > > Here's my proposed scheme: > > GPL = Any GPL license > > GPL1 = GPL1 only > > GPL2 = GPL2 only > > GPL3 = GPL3 only > > > > If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. > > Future proof. > > > I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL" license, it's > always GPL2 or higher....
It exists as part of the license at any rate. > either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people > start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is > removed...there can always be something. I'm very confused. Can you rephrase that?
