Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 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. > > That's not my understanding. The GPLv2 & GPLv>2 are logically distinct > licenses, one can simply decide to drop the "or any later version" in > code you distribute based on code with that clause. The no extra > restrictions bit refers to the GPLv2 *or* the GPLv3 -- not both > together.
OK, I officially take that statement back. I see the difference. >> One common reason to use the GPL in the first place, is precisely >> to be compatible with other GPL licensed software. Remember that >> few (none?) copyleft licenses are compatible with the GPL, be it by >> design or by chance. > > This is less a characteristic of the GPL in particular than of licensing > in general. Certainly. >> Placing your code under the GPL, is placing a large faith in the FSF >> not to change the license terms in a manner you might disagree with, a >> faith which in many case may be broken, should some of the rumored >> clauses end up in the final GPLv3 text. > > True, and given some of the rumors I'm rather skeptical about the > freeness of the GPLv3 to be. But all in all I don't think the risks are > that great of using the "or any later version" language. Worst case > scenario is that folks discover they've given more permissions than they > meant to. Suddenly having your code out there, with a different set of permissions than you intended, is bad enough for me. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]