On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:46:56PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > It seems there are two rough interpretations: that "v2 or later" is dual- > licensing (or "dual, triple, etc-licensing"), and GPL#9 merely explains > that, affirms it and recommends it; or that GPL#9 makes an explicit > licensing requirement of it, such that it becomes "locked in" by GPL#6.
If someone at the FSF does claim officially that the first is possible, could you also ask how this is supposed to be done? [For example, is it legal to remove the "or later versions" copyright notices?] Thanks, -- Raul
