> > I can see why you'd think that. However, that's not one of the terms > > offered by GPL v2. Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something > > analogous to "GPL v2 alone" as one of its terms.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 11:43:14AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > What do you mean that's not one of the terms offered? I mean, when I read the terms of version 2 of the GPL, I don't see that one offered in the sense of disallowing the user to use later versions of the GPL. Being available under version 2 of the GPL is certainly valid. My point was simply that this doesn't have the meaning some people seem to be trying to claim -- that of disallowing the user to use GPL v3. > If I say something is available under the terms of the GPL v2, what do you > think that means? Legally null? No, it means that it is available under the terms of the GPL v2 -- thus, where that version of the GPL offers options, you may choose any of the options it offers. > If so, the FSF doesn't agree with you: > > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/GPLv2orLater.html > > They say that allows distribution under the GPLv2. And I agree with them. -- Raul
