On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Philipp Überbacher <[email protected]> wrote: > Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200: >> On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote: >> > My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. >> > Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or >> > later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are >> > lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to >> > create a naming scheme which will fit all. >> >> Sure: >> >> GPL2 >> GPL2+ >> GPL3 >> GPL3+ >> etc. > > That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, > because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well. >
I missed the bloody obvious.... :lol: >> For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+ > > I think that's not convenient but confusing. > -- Even with setting GPL to GPL2+, it is a lot of work. I don't even want to think about the amount of work it creates not doing so... Not sure if it is really worth the effort at this point. Ronald
