Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 20:10:00 +0200: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > > Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > > >> It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later > >> for any N. The question is which way is optimal. > > > > GPL2 > > GPL2-only > > GPL3 > > GPL3-only > > etc > > > > Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are > > licensed under the standard "this version or later" license? > > > > clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no. > > most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These > need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to > be converted to GPL2-only. > You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now. > > Ronald
I also wonder about the GPLv1/any case. It's nothing that should be used anymore, but technically all the perl stuff would need 'GPLv1 or later' which is the same as 'GPL any'. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
